tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4967431791857941720Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:20:51 +0000Comments and ConcernsKalahari--QuestionsQuestion EverythingThis is an effort to give people another opportunity to engage in the debate on the issues of the day. Debate is, "to discuss or examine a question by considering or stating different arguments." To ensure the give and take of debate this blog has one rule--Answer a question and you get to ask one. You must state at least one reason to support your position. I hope that through reasoned discourse solutions will emerge.http://questeverything.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.com (MATT KELLY)Blogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4967431791857941720.post-3812764557772400357Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:21:00 +00002012-06-18T09:31:06.680-07:00The Courts Revisited<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">To date council has been exclusively focused on meeting the perceived needs of the courts in moving forward with the new courthouse. As with any decision there should have been consideration of other factor such as the building and operational costs and how they impact other city priorities, service, and city residents. In the case of the new courthouse there are issues of compatibility with the historic downtown and whether it will be a 21<sup>st</sup> century courthouse. It’s time to refocus on the big picture.</span></span><br /><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><o:p></o:p></span></span> <br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;">&nbsp;</span></o:p></span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">The issue of cost has in part been decided when the council approved the sales of $36 million in bonds for the project. Some of these funds have now been spent to purchase property, to renovate space at the Executive Plaza for the Juvenile Domestic Relations Court (JDR), and demolition has commenced on the old JDR site for the new courthouse.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>What remains to be decided is the size and scope of the project.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>In making these decisions it will be important to look beyond just court needs.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br /><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">This budget year the actual cost to the city for courts and jails is $7.2 million dollars. Next year the debt service on the courts will go up almost $1 million as the first payment is made that covers the debt principle. Operational cost of the court facility will go up. The amount of increase in building operations, maintenance, and personnel has yet to be considered. In recent conversations with state representative we know that the city cannot expect additional funding for either court construction or operational costs now and into the foreseeable future. <o:p></o:p></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Fredericksburg already has the highest per capita cost for court operations for a city of our size. With no assistance forthcoming from the state, and no new local funds available, city residence will have to bear the cost. With plans to expand court facilities even further in the future we must consider whether the city can continue to bear this cost when you consider other priorities such as education, public safety, and the financial burden on city residents. <o:p></o:p></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">If Fredericksburg is looking at future courtroom expansion it should be expected that our two neighbors in the 15<sup>th</sup>Judicial District, which each currently have five time the city’s population and growing at a greater rate, are facing the same situation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Understanding this dynamic discussion on the court project should be limited to short term needs. Meeting long-term court needs should be a regional discussion. So what should the city build now?<o:p></o:p></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">If completed as currently proposed we are looking at constructing a temporary JDR court, building four full sized court rooms each for the Circuit and District Courts. And finally the current General District court will be renovated as the new JDR court. The Renwick Courthouse will be left vacant. No new parking is included to support the new courthouse. The factors that drove this plan were case loads and the state Guidelines for New Court Construction. How valid are these factors? <o:p></o:p></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">The caseload projections used by the city show a continual increase in case loads looking as far out as 2030. It is acknowledged that projections beyond 5-years become less reliable due to the number of variables involved. Going out over 10 years becomes more a guess than a projection. In a June 2011 Government Accounting Office (GAO) report on surplus court space in the federal system one of the causes given was, “inaccurate caseload projections.” <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>It should also be understood that the projections for the city are being driven by regional growth. Fredericksburg is no longer the economic hub of the region which would call into question any long-term projections. <o:p></o:p></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">The GAO report is part of an almost decade long effort by the federal government to reduce court construction and operational costs. They are looking at shared court rooms, and reevaluating space needs in light of technological improvements.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>In the current plan for the courts these options have not been considered.<o:p></o:p></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">In looking at the plans for two other court facilities in Virginia going back&nbsp;a number of years&nbsp;there are no significant change when compared to the court plans for Fredericksburg. They are all based on the standardized state Courthouse Construction Guidelines. Saving space by digitizing records or recognizing the move towards a paperless court system, or other options that are being implemented at the federal level, have not been considered. <o:p></o:p></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Another consideration is when, and if, additional judges will be appointed by Richmond to fill the courtrooms currently planned. Right now the judges spend at least one day at other courts in the district. This is a question that needs to be addressed as part of the planning process. <o:p></o:p></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">While there seems to be agreement to reevaluate space usage there is some hesitance based on perceived opposition from judges and getting too far ahead of the courts in implementing the needed procedural changes that allows for maximum use of technology. We can ensure the courts are prepared for these changes or the city will be faced with costly retro-fits. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>Right now the contract is rather vague on the level of technology to be installed. <o:p></o:p></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Another factor yet to be discussed is the impact of this project on the city’s downtown. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>The historic small town atmosphere of downtown is something our neighbor’s do not have <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>and ensuring a good visitor experience is extremely important as the region n continues to grow and the city’s role as regional economic hub diminishes. <o:p></o:p></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">The current design is 50+ feet in height, built to the sidewalks. It will be the largest building downtown. There is no room for any public space which is part of other court facilities through-out the state. The finishes of the structure will be castings and there will be very little variations in the structure. It will essentially be a brick box. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>To be completed as planned will call for Special Use Permits and even Special Exceptions.<o:p></o:p></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">The Architectural Review Board (ARB) criticized the city for presenting them with no other option than what was presented understanding that council would overrule them if the scale and massing was not approved. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>At its last meeting the ARB discussed rescinding its vote on the scale and massing. The Certificate of Appropriateness needed for the project has not been provided due to issues with the materials being used and with the lack of public space.<o:p></o:p></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">The current design is too big for the site. If we accept the projected court needs and space requirements, and want to achieve the original goal of consolidating court facilities it needs to be built elsewhere. In addition to size there is another issue which has been ignored and that is the projects impact on downtown parking.<o:p></o:p></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">The city’s incentives program is credited with bringing businesses downtown that are going to attract more visitors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>A recent survey of shop owners and downtown visitors ranked parking as one of the top four issues to be addressed to ensure a successful downtown. As we move forward with riverfront improvements more parking could be eliminated. So how do new court facilities impact downtown parking?<o:p></o:p></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Between 415 and 434 parking spaces will be needed to support the new court facilities. To meet this need the plan is to continue to use off-street parking—242 spaces, and augment it by taking up <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>to 192 spaces in the parking garage. </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;">As caseloads increase, the already limited parking options in the city will continue to worsen to the detriment of the downtown economy. <o:p></o:p></span></span><br /><br /><div class="MsoListParagraph" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Understanding all the factors surrounding the courts project the following modifications should be considered:</span></span></div><br /><div class="MsoListParagraph" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Remove renovations for the General District Court (GDR) from the proposal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>The JDR court can stay in the Executive Plaza for the foreseeable future or use one of the court rooms in the new facility.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br /><div class="MsoListParagraph" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Reduce the number of court rooms in the new facility to no more than three.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Also reevaluate space usages with the stakeholders, looking to take advantage of technology and procedural changes being contemplated in the court system.</span></span></div><br /><div class="MsoListParagraph" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">With savings from the elimination of the GDR renovations look to the possibility of addressing parking, renovations of the Renwick courthouse, excluded in the current plan, to include continuing its court function, or using them to pay down debt.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br /><div class="MsoListParagraph" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Begin discussions with neighboring jurisdictions to look at a regional approach to meet future court needs.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br /><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">A number of issues remain that need to be addressed regarding the current courthouse proposal. And when addressed we can proceed with building a courthouse on the chosen site which compliments both the needs of the courts and the city.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>And as it will be city residents who will bear the financial burden of this project they should be part of this discussion and kept informed of the deliberations.&nbsp;<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</span></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><strong>Do we proceed with the plan currently before us or do we revise it?</strong></span></span></span>http://questeverything.blogspot.com/2012/06/courts-revisited.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (MATT KELLY)2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4967431791857941720.post-4294855551360060936Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:26:00 +00002012-03-29T04:26:31.431-07:00Transportation--Where Do We Go From Here?I<span style="font-family: Prensa-Regular;">N A RECENT op-ed by David Ross of the Spotsylvania County Board of Supervisors about the proposed regional toll road, he presented a one-sided view of the project and did not consider the realities that we face in dealing with transportation. He also failed to acknowledge recent planning efforts to address the region's long-term needs in the face of these realities. Disagreement is to be expected. But </span><span style="font-family: Prensa-Regular;">it is essential that an accurate picture of regional transportation planning be provided and projects placed in their proper context. </span> <br />The Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, which is responsible for regional transportation planning, has, in conjunction with VDOT and the Federal Highway Administration, evaluated transportation needs and options: from the outer connector, to the Interstate 95 corridor from Stafford through Spotsylvania, to traffic light signals and turn lanes. FAMPO is required to have a regional transportation plan looking 30 years ahead, and to periodically update it. Transportation planning is an ongoing process.<br /><br /><span style="font-family: Prensa-Regular;">It should be understood that we must focus on future growth and not just short-term fixes. Light synchronization and a few miles of new lanes on State Route 3 are not going be enough to handle traffic demands. We must also recognize that building or altering a road has an impact on those that surround them. We must adopt a comprehensive approach to transportation.</span><br /><br />C'MON, BE REALISTIC<br /><br />It is imperative that we be realistic in our approach. The main concern of the FHWA, which has the final say on all improvements to I-95, is maintaining traffic flow. Proposing an off-ramp from I-95 just to serve a narrow jurisdictional need will not be considered. <br /><br />Whether it's a new interchange or an off-ramp, or even the widening a street, obtaining the necessary right of way will be necessary. If eminent domain is not considered, then we need to rethink any new roads or road improvements. One factor in choosing the current toll road option was that it had the least impact on existing housing and development than any of the other outer-connector proposals. <br /><br />As for cost, all the proposals considered to date involving a bypass from I-95 exceed the cost of the current toll road proposal. The $300 million cost that has been attributed to the toll road also includes improvements at the U.S. 17 interchange and along I-95 to the proposed interchange, including new bridges over the Rappahannock.<br /><br />There is an economic development component to be considered in transportation planning. The toll road project provides access to the Celebrate Virginia development. It will also divert residential traffic around one of Spotsylvania County's commercial corridors and will help to alleviate congestion on Route 17 in Stafford, one of the county's commercial corridors. It will also alleviate congestion on I-95, making it easier for tourists to travel here. We need to increase jobs and local business opportunities so that we can provide revenue for schools, public safety, and transportation, without increasing the tax burden for our residents.<br /><br />And, while we may have a transportation plan, funding is required to implement it. The reality is that this region can expect only a third of the funding from traditional sources. We must look at other sources, such as toll roads, to keep pace with development and to make up for a significant shortfall.<br /><br />TRANSIT OPTIONS<br /><br />FAMPO has not only looked at alternate funding plans but also has moved away from jurisdictional self-interest and prioritized a transportation project based on safety, congestion mitigation, and cost/benefit analysis to ensure that the investment of traditional funding has the maximum impact. Part of its most recent transportation plan is a review of transit options. This will require re-thinking how our region will develop. To this end FAMPO has embarked on a regional scenario looking at how changing development patterns could foster transit and reduce our long-term transportation costs. <br /><br />Contrary to what some may think, FAMPO has over the past few years invited community involvement in the process, with focus groups, surveys, inserts in The Free Lance-Star, news stories, radio interviews, and meetings with civic groups to explain the transportation plan and process. FAMPO has a public participation plan that can be viewed on its website. Meetings are open to the public and attendees are invited to speak. Every project involves multiple public hearings.<br /><br />To ensure an adequate transportation system we cannot limit our focus to a single jurisdiction or project. This is a regional issue. By 2035, this region has been predicted to double in population. Traditional funding needed to adequately support this growth is not there. Debate on how to achieve our transportation goals is inevitable and necessary. But for honest debate viable alternatives must be proposed. Supervisor Ross has not brought one forward. <br /><br />Recognizing reality and working together is essential to meeting our transportation needs. Playing politics with this issue will endanger the economic well-being and the quality of life of our region. <br /><br /><strong>Do you believe that this region will meet its transportation goals?</strong>http://questeverything.blogspot.com/2012/03/transportation-where-do-we-go-from-here.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (MATT KELLY)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4967431791857941720.post-7722406429797923051Tue, 23 Aug 2011 14:52:00 +00002011-08-23T07:53:38.343-07:00Public Involvement--More or Less?<span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">While some see an engaged public as an <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>important component of local governance; others believe that it can go too far becoming an impediment to progress. Fredericksburg has experienced significant public involvement in local government. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>From the rezoning of Celebrate Virginia to incentives for Kalahari city residents have actively engaged in the decision- making process.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>While the city still faces many challenges, some believe that public involvement has declined. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>How should this decline be viewed? How involved should the public be in their local government? And how should, local government respond to the public?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span></span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">&nbsp;<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><o:p></o:p></span>&nbsp; <br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt;">Over the past few weeks I have been in contact with a number of residents who have been involved in city issues to get their take on public involvement in the city. The vast majority agree that public participation in local government has declined. The main reason given was, </span><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">"what's the use... it's a done deal." <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>Another<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>point made more than once <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>was," Some cannot afford the luxury to spend time to be knowledgeable and outspoken on issues and have to work extra/spend more time making ends meet." Other contributing factors put forward were a lack of information made available by the city;<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>and a <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>failure of the local press to<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>be," willing to do the work to present both sides."<o:p></o:p></span></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">Based on discussions with city staff, and statements made by members of the City Council, they would take issue with the position that they are responsible<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>for a decline in public participation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>They note that the city adheres to opening meeting laws and<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>residents have access to minutes and documents on line. Those with questions can contact the appropriate staff. However, is meeting the requirements of <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>open meeting laws enough?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">Meeting the letter of the open meeting laws is a rather passive approach<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>leaving it up to residents to attend meetings and <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>do their own research.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>It<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>also requires a working understanding of<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>such things as zoning law and city/state ordinances.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>But its greatest short- coming is that it's not a very effective way of informing the public at large. These shortcomings of meeting<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>the letter of the <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>law on open meeting laws was highlighted by an individual who responded to my e-mail inquiry on public participation in regard to the courts. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">The Council has held a public hearing<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>on the courts (albeit limited to which court complex to build), has posted<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>the proposals on line<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>and set up an e-mail address for public comments. As far as the city is concerned it has met its duty to the public. Some would disagree: <o:p></o:p></span></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">"</span><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt;"> When the court bids came in, I was very much looking forward to participating, including plans to read through each of the bids (no trivial task), evaluate them as best I could, and provide meaningful feedback to the decision makers in the process.</span><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="color: blue;"> </span><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p><span style="color: blue;">&nbsp;</span></o:p></span><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt;">Then the city hired an outside firm to study the bids, and kept their report out of the public domain. They used the information in that report to help them narrow the field.<br /></span><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="color: blue;"> <span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">I felt like a stooge. My attitude immediately changed, and here's why: Why should I spend ANY time evaluating bids that were going to be tossed out based on criteria that were kept secret? I don't have a problem with using professionals to evaluate bids. It's probably even wise. But when you keep those results secret from me, I can't evaluate the validity of the report."<o:p></o:p></span></span><br /><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Add to this the fact that comments to the e-mail address are not acknowledged. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>That<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>City Council is not informing the public of their positions on the issues,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>voting without comment, and referring questions to staff seems to justify the<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>perception of many who say, "what's the use," in getting involved, "it's a done deal."<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">It has been intimated by some that<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>too much public involvement is counterproductive. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>Such participation delays the decision making process and creates a chaotic atmosphere that puts the city in a bad light. Their view is we elect a City Council to make <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>decisions. <o:p></o:p></span><br /><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">One <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>example <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>brought forward to support this view<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>was the construction of the downtown hotel. Sometimes referred to<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>as the, "Third Battle of Fredericksburg." this issue was hotly debated. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>At times it looked like there would be no hotel and some felt <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>that the debate would negatively impact future economic development opportunities. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>In the end,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>instead of a cookie -cutter hotel<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>the city now has a successful one that fits the downtown character<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>and is an industry <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>model.<o:p></o:p></span></div><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">What those who see such a process as time-consuming and chaotic fail to recognize that by encouraging public involvement different perspectives are presented, suppositions are tested, and<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>other alternatives are bought forward.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Just as important, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>addressing public comments, questions, and concerns builds community support.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>An assumption is also made that if he public does not come forward on an issue it means they support it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>This assumption is both baseless, and more importantly, irrelevant. <o:p></o:p></span><br /><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Local <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>government is here to serve the needs of the community which also provides the money to meet those needs. In that regard they have a vested interest in local government and should expect<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>their views to be considered and be <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>well informed<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>of the actions being taken on their behalf.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Meeting this obligation calls for more than only doing what is required by law. So what should be expected?<o:p></o:p></span></div><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Right now<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>city staff is <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>not only called upon to field comments and questions from the public <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>but <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>is also called upon by the City Council to explain the city's actions to the public. While staff has always been accommodating to resident inquires their primary function is running the city.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>The job of informing the public, and encouraging their participation, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>should rest with the City Council.<o:p></o:p></span><br /><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Issues need to be discussed outside<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>of council chambers. Council members should engage the public through <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>neighborhood meetings, writing OpEds, giving interviews, and using <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>the internet. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>Such efforts need to occur well before public hearings and/or votes to insured that the public is familiar with all aspects and options related to the issue at hand. While the public should not expect council members to share their view on an issue <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>but they should expect their questions answered, suggestions considered, and concerns addressed.<o:p></o:p></span></div><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The local press needs to be an active participant in this effort by <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>providing background, cover differing views, and report council members positions. Also to provide Council the opportunity to write OpEds on the issues of the day. The shared goal of the council and the press should be to ensure the <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>public has the information necessary to engage in the discussion. <o:p></o:p></span><br /><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The public should also be viewed as a resource to assist in the decision-making process.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>By taking pro-active steps to ensure a well-informed public the city will benefit<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>from an informed debate on the issues facing the city. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>The city has had some success with establishing committees of residents with expertise on an issue, an interest in the issue, and/or<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>who have divergent views on an issue, to build consensus and ensure that all options were considered.<o:p></o:p></span></div><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The view From City Hall is that they are doing what is required to inform the public. This<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>is tantamount to saying public involvement is something to be dealt with not embraced.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>This attitude, in part, has contributed to the decline of public participation. The result is a wealth of knowledge, new ideas, and different perspectives not being considered or utilized. At a<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>time when the city is facing many challenges we can use all the help we can get.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>And there needs to be a realization <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>of who the boss is--The public.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><strong>Shoul public involvement be viewed as a help or a hinderance&nbsp;&nbsp;to local governance?</strong> &nbsp;<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><o:p></o:p></span>http://questeverything.blogspot.com/2011/08/public-involvement-more-or-less.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (MATT KELLY)5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4967431791857941720.post-4091971683092099692Sun, 31 Jul 2011 17:11:00 +00002012-01-16T18:33:56.724-08:00Oversized Housing--Where Are We?<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><strong><u>Addition 8/1/2011:</u></strong> Thanks to a more observant individual I have included a link to the attachment, including the Clarion report on the changes, which was presented at the Council's 1/25/2011 work session.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Provides a bit more detail. Don't believe it alters the point of the blog post but I shall leave that final determination up to the reader.</span></div><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">In 2007 responding to resident concerns about the building of oversized houses, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>"McMansions;" which were seen to detract from the character of established neighborhoods, City Council began to look at tightening zoning regulations to deal with this issue. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>Almost four years later Council, at its last meeting,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>voted, without comment, on first read to make those changes. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>What has occurred, or not occurred, in getting to this point is of interest on a number of levels. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>Beyond the obvious (property rights) other aspects to consider are the interaction between City Council and the public, the continuity of the process, the use of consultants, and making other changes not related to the original intent of the effort. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>We will touch on these points as we follow the process from the beginning.<o:p></o:p></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The issue of out-of-scale housing came out of the City's Comprehensive Plan review process.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>The plan, which was approved in late 2007, was the culmination of an effort by the city to actively engage the public in the review process -- a novel approach in comparison with prior reviews which had only involved city staff. Public input brought the issue of oversized housing to the fore. In response City Council asked the Planning Commission, without specific recommendations, to come up with zoning changes to deal with it.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Working with staff the Planning Commission submitted a proposal to City Council in February 2008. The highlights were outlined in a February 23, 2008 story in the Free-Lance Star (FLS):<o:p></o:p></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><em><span style="color: blue;">In residential districts, the maximum allowed height of a house would go from 35 feet (or 40 in the R-8 district) to 27 feet. In commercial-transitional districts, the height limit would be set at 27 feet for single-family homes, and 40 feet for all other structures.</span></em></span><br /><br /><em><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">A building footprint would not be allowed to cover more than 30 percent of its lot. Front porches and uncovered decks don't count as part of that footprint. For lots less than 40 feet wide, the maximum lot coverage would be 40 percent.<o:p></o:p></span></span></em><br /><em><span style="color: blue;"> </span></em><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><em><span style="color: blue;">New homes would have to be oriented on their properties similarly to those around them.<o:p></o:p></span></em></span></div><em><span style="color: blue;"> <span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Property owners would have to seek a special-use permit to build something that doesn't fit within these guidelines.<o:p></o:p></span></span></em><br /><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The FLS story covered the issues which lead up to the effort to deal with oversized homes and included comments from both sides of the issue. The story also came out well in advance of the Public Hearing before City Council giving the public an opportunity to weigh in on the proposed changes and to be prepared for the upcoming hearing. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">This is how the local government process should work. The city actively engaging the public to define an issue -- information presented to the public to both familiarize them with both the details and differing views on the issue well in advance of any action being taken. Unfortunately, this was the last time the public was going to be engaged in this process.<o:p></o:p></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">What was lacking at this point was any clear policy direction from City Council. While some members of Council, myself included, felt the recommended changes were a good balance between property rights and dealing with oversized homes, a minority of members expressed reservations that the recommendations <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>didn't go far enough. <o:p></o:p></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">As pointed out in an FLS story some members of Council felt, <em><span style="color: blue;">" the proposed height limit would still allow new homes or additions in some neighborhoods to be significantly taller than their neighbors,"</span></em> and why couldn't we, <span style="color: blue;"><em>"craft an ordinance that put new construction in perspective with what's around it, instead of setting one rule for every neighborhood in a particular zoning category."</em></span> But no specifics were provided. And no specific direction was given to the Planning Commission by the Council.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">When the Council has policy differences on an issue that directly affects a large segment of the public there should be a discussion before the public to both inform, solicit feedback, and make a case for a particular policy. This did not happen in the case of the Planning Commissions' 2008 recommendations and, as we shall see, it has not happened in regard to the latest changes being considered by Council. <o:p></o:p></span><br /><br />Those who spoke at the public hearing either took the position that the proposed changes were an infringement on the rights of property owners to develop their property <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>or supported the ordinance changes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>No significant changes or alternate proposals were proposed by the public or City Council.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Council took no action sending the proposed changes back to the Planning Commission without any instructions to either modify or change what they had proposed. <br /><br />The issue would not come up again until August when a joint meeting between the Council and Planning Commission took place to discuss the next step. Again<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>general reservations were expressed by some Council members <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>that the proposed changes didn't go far enough but, <span style="color: blue;"><em>" council members seemed OK with bringing the Planning Commission's original proposal back up for a vote."</em></span> The proposed changes were to be brought back up the following month.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>They did not come back to Council until February 2010 and that was only due to an e-mail inquiry received from the press. <br /><br />On February 2, 2010 I received the<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>following e-mail from Emily Battle of the Free Lance Star:<br /><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;"><em><span style="color: blue;">"The last time I see this ordinance on the public schedule is August 2008, when the council had a work session with the planning commission about it. It was said at that point that it would come up on the agenda the next month, but from what I can tell it just dropped off the face of the earth after that. If you can think of a more recent time it came up, let me know, I've been looking through the agendas."<o:p></o:p></span></em></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">I didn't have an explanation as to why the proposed changes to deal with oversized housing, <span style="color: blue;"><em>"just dropped off the face of the earth;"</em></span> but I did<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>have staff added it to the agenda for a public hearing in February. While most of the public comment was supportive of the changes on this ocassion, some Council members still wanted, <em><span style="color: blue;">"</span></em></span><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt;"><em><span style="color: blue;"> to explore different kinds of zoning tools that could take existing home sizes into consideration in specific areas of town."</span></em></span><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;"><o:p></o:p></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">At this point It should be pointed out that the concern expressed regarding, "taking existing<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>home size into consideration,"<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>was addressed in the Planning Commission recommendations. Below is the wording taken from the proposed ordinance:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="color: blue;"><em>"A Special Use Permit may be approved by City Council, in accordance with Division 31,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>that permits the principle structure to exceed the 27 foot height limit and/or the maximum allowed lot coverage, so long as the City Council determines that the proposed structure will be compatible to the existing structures located in the established block in which it is to be located, in terms of mass, scale and height, and will not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood in which it is to be located."<o:p></o:p></em></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">This change would allow houses to be built, irrespective of zoning regulations, if the home conformed to the houses in the existing neighborhood. This change acknowledged the differences between city neighborhoods.<o:p></o:p></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">A motion was made to pass the ordinances as drafted but failed for a lack of a second. Instead, per the Council Minutes, <span style="color: blue;"><em>" Councilor Solley made a motion to revisit the setbacks by themselves at the March 9 meeting and a review of the overall ordinance by a committee to include Planning department, Planning Commission, City Attorney and a council member; motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Devine."</em></span> A request to at least put a time line for the committee to report back to Council was ignored.<o:p></o:p></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">This vote marked the end of the<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Planning Commissions' 2008 recommended changes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>What comes next is the hiring of a consulting firm, a different approach to the oversized housing issue and the inclusion of commercial development in neighborhoods. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>It also marks the end of any public involvement or information on the process beyond the required public hearing notices. <o:p></o:p></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Emily Battle's blog post of <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>February 23, 2010 would be the <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>last <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>story on this issue until the FLS story on July 18, 2011 announcing the first read on the new zoning changes. Even a review of both City Council and Planning Commission minutes provide little insight<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>into the process Council followed or the basis for the current ordinance changes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>For those who don't visit the City website on a regular basis here are the latest recommended changes:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><em><span style="color: blue;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">For properties that are located within the 100-year regulatory floodplain, structure height shall be measured from existing grade</span>.</span></em></span><br /><br /><em><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Maximum building height for single-family residential is 35ft.</span></span></em><br /><br /><em><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">No off-street parking is required for residential infill <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>lots.</span></span></em><br /><br /><em><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">For sites of record on or before April 25, 1984, or sites in developed areas where a pattern of building height has already been established by existing residential dwellings, the maximum building height of 35 feet for single family dwellings shall be reduced by a percentage that corresponds to the ratio of the actual lot area to the minimum lot area for the district. The formula for calculating the maximum building heights for structures on such lots shall be as follows: Size of lot (in square feet) divided by standard minimum lot size (8,400 square feet) multiplied by the standard height of 35 feet equals the new maximum height. In no case shall the new maximum height be set lower than 25 feet.</span></span></em><br /><br /><em><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">Whenever the residential building on a lot equal to or larger than the minimum lot size covers more than 20% of the total lot area, the side setbacks shall be no less than 10 feet.</span></span></em><br /><br /><em><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">Specific commercial uses to be allowed in neighborhoods by Special Use Permit that meet specific guidelines.</span></span></em><br /><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">These latest changes were drafted by </span><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">Clarion Associates of Colorad</span><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">o, LLC. This firm has provided consulting services on planning issues in the past.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>The contract, signed on July 20, 2010, at a cost of $18,000.00, was to provide the following services:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;"><em><span style="color: blue;">This scope of services proposes a review of all residential zoning district regulations in the Zoning Ordinance, followed by recommended revisions to address the permitted mix of limited non-residential uses in single family residential districts; the allowed height and scale of houses; setback requirements; limitations on heights located within the 100 year floodplain; and off-street parking requirements for infill parcels particularly where established neighborhoods do not have or have very little existing off-street parking.</span></em><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The contract provides for a presentation to Council during a work session but no public presentations.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">It has been confirmed with <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>City Planning staff</span><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;"> </span><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">that the request for outside services was not the result of Council action. In reviewing the Planning Commission minutes from March through July of 2010 there is no mention of hiring outside services, nor for that matter, any discussion at all on the oversized housing issue. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>As to who made the decision to hire Clarion, why was it <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>necessary to do so, and why was commercial development in neighborhoods added, these are questions that will have to be answered by others. In any event, this step effectively by-passed the Planning Commission.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Based on a review of the Planning Commission Minutes from April 2010 <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>through April, 2011 their involvement in these changes was rather limited. Their <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>first discussion was held on March 30, 2011 as a work session on the revisions drafted by Clarion. These changes do not show up again on the Planning Commission agenda <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>until the public hearings held on May 11th and on June 8th. The Planning Commission&nbsp;seems to have gone&nbsp;from active participants to passive observers.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Based on a review of the minutes of the Planning Commission, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>the City's planning staff's involvement in drafting the latest ordinance changes was also diminished. While one may have issue with the changes recommended by the staff and Planning Commission back in 2008, a review of the supporting documentation that accompanied those recommendations showed a good grasp of the issue and provided a thorough explanation of <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>the basis for the changes. From what can be found in the public domain the same cannot be said of the Clarion changes.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Trying to determine why commercial development in neighborhoods became interjected into the oversized housing issues is also hard to determine. Planning staff and a member of the Planning Commission I talked with both said that mixed-use development, to include neighborhoods, is part of the Comprehensive Plan. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>But at the March 30th Planning Commission work session <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>staff, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span><em><span style="color: blue;">"</span></em><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><em><span style="color: blue;">stressed that this amendment was something new, a plan to promote walk ability and sustainability. For the first time the city was opening up neighborhoods for some commercial uses."</span></em><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">There are no specific recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>regarding <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>commercial development in neighborhoods. One reference under Corridor Issues which calls for<span style="color: blue;"><em>,"</em></span></span><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="color: blue;"><em> Achieve mixed-use development patterns as redevelopment occurs within Fredericksburg’s designated corridors, blending retail, office, and residential uses."</em></span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Under Neighborhood Issues the plan calls for <em><span style="color: blue;">preserving the character of existing neighborhoods.</span></em><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span><i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span></i>Both the Planning Commission and City Council expressed concerns about this change in their respective work sessions but neither body pushed the issue or express their concerns outside the confines of the meetings..<o:p></o:p></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">There are pros and cons on allowing the possibility of limited commercial development<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>in neighborhoods.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>However, the City's past experiences with this issue has not gone smoothly<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>As a Council member I dealt on a number of occasions with neighborhood concerns about commercial encroachment. This issue has been the basis for litigation.</span><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;"><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">In 2007-08 there was public input to deal with oversized houses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Now an issue, commercial development in neighborhoods, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>is being considered<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>without a public input. It is also unfortunate that the City was not more forthcoming in the Public Hearing notices which only mentioned, "expanding uses permitted by Special Use Permit." There is no mention of commercial development.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>This change has nothing to do with the issue of oversized houses and there is no deadline looming that requires immediate action. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>The issue of commercial development in neighborhoods <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>should be pulled and dealt with as a separate issue.</span></div><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">As for <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>changes related to oversized housing a Council member that was not involved in this issue in 2008 stated that at the one work session held on this issue on January 25th <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>that they were not made aware of the original Planning Commission proposals. One would expect that Council members would have at least compared the two proposals, and why one addressed the issue better than the other.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>When a decision is being made like this that affects residents' property rights one would expect a similar presentation to the public. But this has not been the case. Even when<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Council voted to approve the latest changes they did so without comment. An additional and troubling question is raised: <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>where has the public been?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Some would say that because no one has spoken at the scheduled public hearings that there is obvious support for these changes and no explanation is necessary.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>I would again point out that since February 2008 there have been no stories, OpEds, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>or interviews on this topic. No effort has been made to educate the public on the latest changes beyond posting changes on the city website and the obligatory public hearing notices which are not always<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>easy to understand or read in small print:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: black; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="background-color: white; color: blue;">Ordinance 11-__, First Read, Addressing the Issue of Out-Of-Scale Houses in the R-4 and R-8 Zoning Districts; Removing the Requirement for Off-Street Parking for New Residences on Infill Lots; Expanding the Uses Permitted by Special Use Permit in the R-4 and R-8 Zoning Districts; and Amending the Definition of Building Height for Buildings in the 100-Year Floodplain; by Amending City Code Chapter 78, “Zoning, Planning and Development,” Article III, “Zoning,” Sections 78-1, 78-112, 78-242, 78-245, 78-273 and 78-276</span> <o:p></o:p></span><br /><br /><span style="color: black; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt;">Even if you go to the city website, check City Council and Planning Commission agendas and minutes you will find very little information, or <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>explanation, of the ordinance changes passed by Council.<o:p></o:p></span><br /><br /><span style="color: black; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt;">I asked some of the people who spoke on<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>the 2008 Planning Commission proposals why they did not attend the Public Hearings on the latest zoning changes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Most said that they were unaware of the hearings.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>One person <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>said that while he also missed the notices he stated, "why bother?" <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span><o:p></o:p></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Not all expenditures, or decisions to hire outside consultants, require Council approval. The city has met all legal requirements regarding advertising and holding public hearings.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>The process followed by the city in dealing <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>with oversized houses, for the most part&nbsp;is probably typical of how such issues are dealt with by local governments.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>The question is whether, only doing what is required is enough? </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Because an issue such as ordinance changes to deal with oversized housing <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>impacts most every property owner in the city, should we expect more from City Council than only doing what is required?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Or should they be doing what is necessary to inform the public solicit their input, answer their questions and address their concerns? In regard to the latest ordinance <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>changes Council decided to only do what was required . Council needs to explain the process they followed, why<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>hiring a consultant was necessary, and the rationale for choosing one set of changes over the other before they take the final vote.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><strong>How far should local government go to infom the public?<o:p></o:p></strong></span>http://questeverything.blogspot.com/2011/07/oversized-housing-where-are-we.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (MATT KELLY)5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4967431791857941720.post-312095084274907784Fri, 20 May 2011 16:09:00 +00002011-05-20T09:31:16.287-07:00Numbers Not Content Is What CountsAs a member of City Council I made some decisions that did not receive universal acclaim. But in leading up to those decisions I laid out my position in OpEds, news interviews, and on-line. I answered questions and addressed comments no matter if the person involved lived in the city or not. If the question or comment had merit it is immaterial where it came from. As far as I was concerned it was part of my job description. In reading the FLS editorial Courts Forward (Link upper left), I learned I was wrong.<br /><br />I cannot expect Council to see things as I do and recognize the current shape of the economy and the impacts of a new courts facility on city taxpayers, services, other city priorities, and slow down. What I believe should be expected is that Council would explain their positions, acknowledge what the impacts there will be on the city moving forward with this project, and address comments and questions. And, also to ensure that if they move forward that we get the best return on investment. But again, because only a few people have voiced this view it is irrelevant in the eyes of the media and Council. So what should we expect? Here is the answer provided in the FLS editorial--<br /><br /><i><span style="color: blue;">"So at least let the sleeper behold a truly handsome and fully functional new courthouse facility. The worst outcome would be a civic sacrifice of finances and opportunities that brought forth a mediocre product."</span> </i><br /><br />And what about obligations to the public?<br /><br /><i><span style="color: blue;">"The council should have invited public input earlier in the selection process, before the embryos were fully formed, and it has played some of its deliberations too close to the vest. Yet attempts by foes of a full-scale courts project--e.g., former Councilman Matt Kelly--to galvanize the citizenry have made little headway."</span> </i><br /><br />So, relevancy is based on numbers, informing the public is not a requirement, silence is assent, and if anything goes wrong it will be the fault of city residents. Again speaking for the minority I take issue with this line of thinking. Always thought that through public debate and discussion the best solutions come forward.<br /><br />So what next? There are still many unanswered questions. Let's take a look at some recent questions submitted to the FLS and get your thoughts on whether they are irrelevant. First to the newsroom--<br /><br /><i><span style="color: blue;">"There is are some underling questions behind the request for the referendum which I would suggest be asked of Council members. Do they believe that a single public hearing, in what they describe as at least a five year process (beginning with the Mosley study), which was advertised as a discussion on which court facility to build, is sufficient to gage public support for building new court facilities? Do they believe, and I've enclosed the quotes for the FLS I referred to in my presentation, that they took adequate steps to inform the public throughout this process? Can the public expect any further hearing to address the comments and concerns expressed Tuesday night or is one public hearing all that will be provided? Just a suggestion."</span></i><br /><br />To the Editorial Board--<br /><br /><i><span style="color: blue;">Rob copied me on what he sent on to you. A few points should be made for context:<br /><br />1. Rob is not the only one with a background in this area which has questioned the scope of the proposals submitted. During the public hearing the project manager for the Spotsy courthouse spoke. He is quoted in the alternative news source as follows: "David Breedon, both a city resident and the project manager for the new $20 million Spotsylvania Courthouse said that the scale of the proposed new city court facilities were too large."<br /><br />2. Another interesting statement made by Commonwealth Attorney LaBravia Jenkins was that she had never been consulted on the court plans. In talking to some of the proposers they explained that as part of the RFP they were not allowed to talk with anyone involved with the courts.<br /><br />3. In relation to #2, it was pointed out (I picked this up in a discussion with Hap Connors who was involved in Fed court construction when he was with GSA) that a needs/space assessment was never done. Not even by Mosley when putting their report together in 2006. This process involves on-site inspections and interviews with the people who work in the courts, or use them, to see how things are done and how space is actually used. From this changes can be made in procedures as well as changes noted by Rob in better utilizing space.<br /><br />4. None of the proposers covered technology in their proposals, as noted by Rob, which present both advantages and challenges. This is a key factor in designing a 21st century courthouse.<br />5. One would hope that the issues highlighted by Rob were brought up in the Council's closed session. If they were then the question is again why was the info held from the public. If not there is still a lot of work to be done.<br /><br />6. I agree with Rob that the proposals submitted were done in good faith but when they only have the Mosley report to go by they did the best they could. But under the time line, the open-ended site selection, and rules of the RFP we got what we asked for--"cookie-cutter" proposals which do not deal with the real issues at hand.<br /><br />7. None of the proposals deal with the parking issue. If, as we are being told, that caseloads are skyrocketing then additional parking is going to be necessary unless we plan on shutting out shoppers and visitors during the week. When discussing the post office site it was made clear that at some point another parking deck would be required just to service the courts.<br /><br />I still believe that this is not the time to take on a project of this magnitude. I also do not believe this project and its impacts have been adequately explained nor the public given the opportunity to comment. Thought due to the lack of information coming from the city it is difficult to be in a position to comment. Most people I've talked to about this project begin their comments with, "I don't understand....." However, if the Council majority is set to move forward then we should make sure we are getting what we need and not just rushing forward to build something. Right now we seem poised to build a larger than necessary facility based on 20th century technology and thinking. At a minimum Council should not take any further action go back and take the proper steps to make sure we are in fact building a 21st Century courthouse.</span> </i><br /><br />So will these questions and comments, and all the others put forward over the past five years remain unaddressed? Should they&nbsp;be addressed or are&nbsp;we just expecting too much from our local elected officials and media?<br /><br /><b>I would like to get your thoughts.</b>http://questeverything.blogspot.com/2011/05/numbers-not-content-is-what-counts.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (MATT KELLY)2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4967431791857941720.post-3916109972706090646Mon, 09 May 2011 20:32:00 +00002011-05-09T13:57:15.660-07:00Incentives for UMW Foundation--A Discussion<i>"On the incentives for the Eagle Village hotel there are some question to ask--A hotel has always been part of this project to support the university and hospital. if it was planned to be here anyway why are we providing incentives? If the incentives were not provided would the hotel go away? Doubt it. What is the hospital contributing... to this project? How many hotel rooms are currently in the area and what is the vacancy rate? How are they doing financially? Again, the intent of incentives was to actively recruit businesses that diversify the city's tax base. Are we still just taking what is offered and throwing incentives at it? What is the city's overall plan towards the future economic development of the city? Do we have one?" </i><br /><br /><i>"If the case is made that this incentives package meets city goals Council should also take this opportunity to get some commitment out of the university regarding their plans, and city involvement in, future land acquisitions. Land that will potentially be going off the tax rolls. Up to this point the city has not been consulted by... the university regarding land acquisitions. And the Foundation seems to have adopted a "target of opportunity" approach acquiring land without any specific plans for its use. Actual adherence to, and input from the city in, the university's long range plan should also be up for discussion. A city representative on the Board of Visitors could also be a consideration."<br /></i><br />These two posts I made on the recent Free-Lance Star story on the Mary Washington Foundation application for incentives to build&nbsp;a new hotel at Eagle Village resulting in an interesting e-mail exchange in which local businessman Rodger Provo took issue with my position. The e-mails were copied to Council members, city staff, UMW President Rick Hurley, Foundation CEO Jeff Rountree, EDA members, and the press. My thanks to Councilman Howe and Foundation CEO Jeff Rountree for their input in this discussion.<br /><br />Below is the e-mails thread which covers issues such as the city's use of incentives. The merits of the Hotel project. And whether the city should use this opportunity to secure commitments from the university on other issues such as future land acquisitions. It is a good discussion and while some questions put forward have been answered others have not. The question is whether these issues will be discussed, and answers to the questions forthcoming, at Tuesday night's Council meeting? <br /><br />Get yourself your drink of choice, get comfortable, and let's discuss incentives for a hotel at Eagle Village............................... <br /><br />Matt - <br /><br />I read your posting on the Free Lance-Star about this matter. I would suggest to you this opportunity means more to the community and the university than what you appear to want to acknowledge. I seem to recall when you were in office you never took issue with such packages. Now that you are exercising your free speech rights as an activist your position appears to be different. Cheers!<br /><br />Rodger<br /><br />******<br /><br />Well I guess there are at least two of us concerned on the direction in which we are headed, if that’s the case, because I personally agree with Matt’s analysis – for the record!<br /><br />There really doesn’t seem to be any comprehensive plan embraced by both the City and UMW – just the continued real estate acquisitions of what minimal City land base we have, with the promise of spill-over taxable income in return to off-set our City services expenses.<br /><br />The master plan expansion for the University places continued stress on the surrounding communities who are struggling to deal with the student population / rental issues, parking issues to provide just a couple examples, of resident complaints I have personally received.<br /><br />I am equally concerned that we are enabling without a plan the demise of our historic City character into just another College town – as the University continues to expand and gain a larger foot print and a more prominent position, ultimately over shadowing who we are, as a national historical City.<br /><br />I will offer an observation – case in point, the Rt. 1 UMW Eagle Village walking bridge where travelers are not greeted to the City Fredericksburg – they are greeted to the University – the walking bridge UMW Bill Board is a very clear representative of where we are headed and yet two more walking bridges are planned across City property to accompany the further expansion of the Foundation and University City land grabs.<br /><br />I am deeply concerned for the City’s ability to retain its historical prominence in the ever growing expansion efforts of the University and concur that we need to address this at a higher planning and economic development level than we have done to date. There definitely needs to be a plan we can all support and embrace offering a balance between further development based on internal pressure for University expansion within the City’s limited foot print, which serves the City, UMW and our citizens - well into the future.<br /><br />Respectfully,<br />Fred Howe<br /><br />*****<br />I would suggest to all of you that the university is a great asset for the community. We should be grateful it has taken on the task of revitalizing a dead shopping center on Rt. 1. Yes, we do have problems resulting from the presence of UMW in the city, such as the adverse impact of student renting of single family homes in College Heights. Our energies would be better spent working with the university administration relative to that problem that hurts the quality of life of our residents and the value of their homes than getting over exercised about issues I consider to be in the margins.<br /><br />Rodger Provo<br /><br />*****<br />With the recent university land acquisitions, all the construction going on, and announced business openings at Eagle Village some explanation is necessary as to why this one project will not move forward without an incentives package from the city. Has the university/foundation financially over-extended themselves? If that is the case, is Phase II also in jeopardy? Does this also mean that the city should not see any further acquisition of property in the foreseeable future? Don't oppose the hotel concept, said so when it was first discussed, but why incentives now? What other requests can the city expect in the future? Just asking for a public explanation.<br /><br />As for the issue of future land acquisitions this has been an issue for years. And frankly just, "working with the administration," has not been very productive as is the case on other issues to which Roger alluded. Based on past experience even the University's long-range plan is already suspect. If the University/Foundation are truly looking for a partnership with the city then coming to an agreement with the city in regards to a process for future land acquisitions, and establishing boundaries for future expansion, should not be an issue. The request for incentives by the University is a good time to have that conversation, before taking action, so as to establish a good and open working relationship for the future.<br /><br />-Matt-<br /><br />*****<br />Matt - <br /><br />It appears to me that you and one member of City Council have a fix on certain issues concerning the university without regards to other matters more important to the community. <br /><br />The reality is current hotel financial markets are difficult and, though I have no seen a budget for this proposed hotel, I think it probably needs certain considerations from the city, not unlike the massive<br />tax concession package you so willingly supported for the proposed Celebrate Virginia water park resort that has yet to be funded. <br /><br />The university acquisitions are a driving force in revitalizing the Rt. 1 corridor that adjoins our neighborhood, College Heights. We should be thrilled with their activity at Eagle Village which has had a positive impact on the city. I think the current UMW administration will work with the city and residents about problems we need resolved and we should not slam the door on them relative to that prospect by being unreasonable relative to their request about the hotel.<br /><br />It strikes me as odd that you and Mr. Howe are so exercised about this matter, given he has supported two zoning requests that adds more rental units to the city's housing inventory which we do not need. In one case, we got additional townhouses for a portion of a project primarily located in Spotsylvania County that adjoins commercial properties along Rt. 1. That land should have been packaged with the Rt. 1 property for commercial development. <br /><br />I guess you and Mr. Howe's concerns about our tax base are tainted by who is involved with the property. All of this reminds me of a less productive time in the city's history when one City Council member-activist often used the the college and hospital for political purposes with unproductive attacks and criticisms. <br /><br />Rodger Provo <br /><br />*****<br />Rodger,<br /><br />There are hotels that will attract new visitors to the area and spur additional development to meet city tourism goals. The primary goal of the hotel proposed by the University/Foundation is to meet a need for both the university and hospital by providing hotel rooms close to their respective facilities. For people who would be coming anyway and would normally stay at another hotel facility like the downtown Marriot. I know that Marriott had conversations with the University as a potential user for their hotel in making their decision to move forward with the project. This is not a criticism it is a reality. <br /><br />It is also a reality that Eagle Village and even the proposed hotel will have a positive financial impact on the city. Don't know where you get the idea that I am opposed to the University or this specific project. As noted above it has potential impacts on similar facilities in the area. As discussed before the city needs to stop looking at projects in a fishbowl ignoring other outside factors. I also have a concern that no case has been made that this project would not move forward without the incentives package. Is this another example of just taking advantage of the incentives program. Again not a criticism of the university. If I were in Rick's and Jeff's shoes I'd be doing the same thing.<br /><br />We have had conversations regarding the city's recent use of incentives before and I thought we were in agreement on the lines noted above. It is also a discussion, as you know, that has gone on in the community. Regardless if the project is a downtown bar or a hotel for the university. The city needs to do a better job explaining the use of incentives in meeting the city's overall goals.<br /><br />As for the issues with the university in other areas such as future land acquisitions I do believe this is a good opportunity for the city and university to come to some kind of understanding and a little leverage doesn't hurt. Especially based on past experiences. It's called negotiating. And I think the city should be looking at more than just space for artwork.<br /><br />Most of questions, not criticisms, I have put forward should be asked of any applicant for incentives. For example--Meeting city goals, issues of competition, other parties to the deal and what they bring to the table, and finally is there a real need for the incentives.<br /><br />Finally, I would like to thank-you Rodger for starting this discussion. While we may not agree on all the points it is a discussion that should be taking place. It probably would not have if you didn't start the ball rolling.<br /><br />-Matt-<br /><br />*****<br />Matt - <br /><br />Given my experiences in the hotel industry, I would suggest to you and others a hotel at Eagle Village will generate new business for the city. It will offer the opportunity for the medical center and university to provide rooms for patient families, student families and attendees for special events, etc. Many communities would love to have a quality medical center and university as a cornerstone of their economy. We should be more grateful for the opportunities we have.<br /><br />Rodger<br /><br />*****<br />Rodger,<br /><br />As always I do respect your insights and experience but, as is sometimes the case, we may not agree. In this case, our disagreement is not as much about the project itself but rather on the process that has brought it before Council. I have asked a number of questions--not criticisms--which I believe are legitimate in judging the overall merits of this or any project. Some questions are project specific but most should be asked regarding any project that involve incentives. Should they be ignored? <br />The city does have some legitimate issues, many you have voiced yourself, with UMW. And on occasion you have expressed frustration with the university's response. Again our disagreement is not with the project but whether the city should take the opportunity presented by the university's request for incentives to come up with more concrete solutions that will strengthen the university/city relationship.<br /><br />Thank-you again for your comments and criticisms. Unfortunately most of those who should be participating in this discussion remain quietly on the sidelines. Yet they will ultimately make the decision on providing incentives for this project. Based on past actions I would surmise that there will be little public discussion on these issues and the incentives package passed. If that is the case it is a great disservice to city residents.<br /><br />-Matt-<br /><br />*****<br />Matt - <br /><br />I am a real estate guy. The merits of this opportunity are simple .... the city will trade a poorly built 1960s vintage portion of a shopping cheaply updated now with low end businesses and stores and vacancies for a new hotel that will bring new customers to the neighborhood. I think it is a great opportunity.<br /><br />Rodger<br /><br />*****<br />Fred, Matt and Roger,<br /><br />My apologies for being late to the discussion, but with Graduation and family commitments this weekend, I have been uncharacteristically off email for a few days. Although I’m not exactly sure where to jump in here, let me focus purely on the hotel project and answer one key question that was asked several times…”why the need for a City incentive.”<br /><br />The answer is very simple, we probably can’t make the numbers work without it. As I will report to Council tomorrow night, the UMW Foundation has discussed this project with 22 banks, with only four positive responses…that is how tight the lenders are right now, especially with hotels. The equity requirements for a hotel developer borders on the ridiculous right now and the preliminary deal we have with our “bank of focus” is contingent on successfully receiving the proposed City and State incentive. Simply put, if we do not get the incentives, that deal will be withdrawn and will need to be restructured in a way that will not work for us.<br /><br />Please also note that the University (and hospital for that matter) have nothing to do with the hotel ownership or operation…this is purely a UMW Foundation issue.<br /><br />Hope this answers the question,<br /><br />Jeff<br />Jeff W. Rountree<br /><br /><b>So you now have a handle on the issue does the city move forward with providing incentives? Should the city provide incentives with additional stipulations regarding outstanding issues with the university? Should incentives be denied? Are there other issues you feel were not covered?</b>http://questeverything.blogspot.com/2011/05/incentives-for-umw-foundation.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (MATT KELLY)4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4967431791857941720.post-8250708881520265917Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:44:00 +00002011-04-13T11:02:39.144-07:00I'm a Hypocrite--Reason for Closed SessionIn a recent story in Patch <a href="http://fredericksburg.patch.com/articles/closed-session-cleaves-council-considering-courts">http://fredericksburg.patch.com/articles/closed-session-cleaves-council-considering-courts</a> my name came up regarding a closed session for the parking deck. Some clarification is in order as well as a comment or two on what happened last night.<br /><br />In regards to the parking deck the city received a proposal from Donely's Inc. for a five story pre-fab deck. No Request for Proposals (RFP) had been sent out by the city. After a lively public discussion, including public meetings, the scope of the project was changed to a smaller structure and design more in keeping with the character of downtown. At that point the city entered into contract negotiations with Donely's for a different project than what was proposed. <br /><br />In regards to last night's closed session Council was being presented comparisons of the court facility proposals based on a public RFP which included required specs, and which had been presented in public sessions by the applicants which also included costs. It was made clear that there were no negotiations going on. <br /><br />The only legitimate reason provided by the City Attorney to go into closed session was that there would be information presented regarding financial statements of the companies involved and information on claims and outstanding litigation involving the applicants. That was the only information that should have been considered for a closed session.&nbsp;There was no legitimate reason given for not holding the majority of this presentation in open session.<br /><br />And let's look at the reasons given by Council members for keeping the rest of the meeting closed to the public:<br /><br />--Council needs to talk behind closed doors before they openly debate big decisions like this. No contracts are to be awarded we are just going to ask questions.<br /><br />--It is the responsibility of Council to use its authority to make decisions like this. We owe it to the taxpayers and the people who elected us to make significant decisions and get the best deal possible.<br /><br />--Matt Kelly voted to go into closed session for the parking garage project.<br /><br />Does anyone agree that these are legitimate reasons for a closed session? <br /><br />There was no legitimate reason given for not holding the majority of this presentation in open session. A different situation that what occurred with the parking deck. <br /><br />As the process for the parking deck has now been brought up I would invite anyone to search the FLS archives not only on the parking deck, but also the downtown hotel, and schools and compare the amount of public participation involved in those projects as opposed to what is now happening with the court process.<br /><br />The city had a rancorous, and sometime contentions dialogue with the public which resulted in an award-winning garage /hotel and state of the art schools. Those who have to foot the bill have a right to participate in the process. Council is going out of its way to avoid public dialogue in regard to the courts. Why?<br /><br /><strong>How much public involvement is enough?</strong>http://questeverything.blogspot.com/2011/04/im-hypocrite-reason-for-closed-session.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (MATT KELLY)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4967431791857941720.post-6074586973168938285Mon, 21 Mar 2011 02:30:00 +00002011-03-22T07:51:20.323-07:00Incentives--Are They Successful?At a recent City Council meeting, staff stated that the five downtown restaurants awarded incentives, would generate 4.2 million dollars in revenue over the life of the agreements. Council members touted this as evidence of the success of the incentives program. <br /><div><a href="http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2011/022011/02092011/606176">http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2011/022011/02092011/606176</a></div><div>Mayor Tom Tomzak pointed to this number as an example of efforts to, "maintaining an income stream from non-property tax sources."</div><div><a href="http://fredericksburg.patch.com/articles/mayor-says-taxes-must-rise-to-pay-for-services">http://fredericksburg.patch.com/articles/mayor-says-taxes-must-rise-to-pay-for-services</a><br />However, before declaring the incentives program a success, let's take a closer look at the revenue projections; look at factors impacting these numbers; and put them in context with the city's overall revenue picture as well as in context with the long-term economic development goals. Upon closer study, we will see a different story.<br /><br />First it should be understood that the revenue projections upon which this new revenue is based come from the restaurants involved. But for the sake of our discussion let's accept them as given. The income to be generated from these sales projections will come from three sources--sales tax, meals tax, and Business and Professional Occupational Licenses Tax (BPOL). In the case of Capital Ale, Kybecca, and Bavarian Chef the incentive agreements are for a period of ten-years. For Longstreet's and Castiglia's the agreement s are for five years. Based on projections provided by the City's Economic Development Dept. the yearly average revenue stream for these restaurants will be $465,620.00. Here is the breakdown:<br /><br />Capital Ale.........$187,600.00<br />Kybecca.............$ 64,320.00<br />Bavarian Chef....$125,300.00<br />Longstreets.........$ 77,600.00<br />Castiglia's...........$ 10,800.00<br />TOTAL...............$465,620.00<br /><br />As noted, each incentive agreement is subject to different lengths and terms but all include a maximum payout. Dividing these pay-outs by the length of each agreement the cost to the city per year are:<br /><br />Capital Ale...........$ 5,500.00<br />Kybecca...............$ 8,000.00<br />Bavarian Chef......$ 9,000.00<br />Longstreets...........$ 9,250.00<br />Castiglia's............$ 5,300.00 <br />TOTAL...............$37,050.00<br /><br />So we are looking at a projected revenue stream to the city of $428,570.00 per year. The inference being made is that this is a net revenue increase to the city. Based on the proposed 2012 budget , staff projects the increases in revenue for meal, sales and BPOL taxes at $830,000.00. This would mean that these five restaurants will account for almost 52% of the proposed increase. However, this is not the case. Let's take at look beyond just the numbers at some of the factors not being considered.<br /><br />While downtown has gained five new or improved restaurants these new establishments are replacing a number of restaurants that have closed. Therefore, the incentivized restaurants need to cover the lost revenue from its predecessors before the city actually sees new revenue. A related issue is the competition with the already established downtown restaurants.<br /><br />Downtown is not on what would be considered a major thoroughfare, and does not have the infrastructure, i.e., roads and parking, to support a significant influx of new visitors which the restaurants applying for the incentives factored into the revenue projections provided to the city. We have a lot of available retail/office space downtown that remains vacant because of a lack of adequate parking. Plans to build a courthouse downtown with no parking provided will exacerbate this problem as caseloads continue to grow. More restaurants, and restricted access, means some restaurants may do better but at the expense of others. And will these restaurants by themselves attract new customers downtown? That is one of the primary goal of the incentives program.<br /><br />A case can be made for providing incentives to Capital Ale, Bavarian Chef and Kybecca for attracting people downtown. Capital Ale had an established record of attracting clientele from outside the area based on their Richmond operations. They also invest in events that would attract visitors downtown. Bavarian Chef also had a record of attracting clientele from well beyond its Madison County location and also provides a new dining experience. Kybecca's wine bar is a unique addition not only in the city but in the region as well. The same cannot be said of the most recent restaurants who received incentives.<br /><br />The incentive for Castiglia's was centered on a brick oven for pizza. There are already two other brick oven pizzeria's in the area including one in the city. There are five other pizzerias in the area and a number of other restaurants that serve similar fare. Those include another Castiglia's in Spotsylvania and Longstreet's, located on the same street, which also received an incentives package. Longstreet's has no track record nor does it provide a unique experience or menu. Hard Times Cafe, which has locations in the city and Spotsylvania County, has a bar and also pool tables. However, there are a number of other "sports bars" with TVs and similar themes in the area.<br /><br />What is also a bit perplexing in the case of incentives for Castiglia's and Longstreet's is that both were moving ahead with their projects before applying for incentives. Under these circumstances the city basically gave back revenue that was already coming.<br /><br />Another factor to consider is the city doesn't seem to be having a problem attracting restaurants. Looking at the Rt. 1 corridor we now have Umi, Miso, Pueblo's, and all the new restaurants at Eagle Village. A number of new restaurants have also opened in Central Park the most talked about being Quaker Steak &amp; Lube. None of these restaurants received incentives. And all, with adequate parking and on major thoroughfares, I would guess they will ultimately have a greater impact on the city's bottom line than the five incentivized restaurants downtown. So one has to ask--What is the point? and what has been the financial impact on the city of all these restaurants?<br /><br />To gauge the success of the incentives program we need to see an increase in revenues from, "non-property tax sources." That being said, let's take a look at the sales, meals and BPOL tax revenues over the past few years to put the impact of these five restaurants into perspective.<br /><br />The high point in sales tax revenue was in 2006 when the city collected $12,856,952.00. The projected revenue from these sources in the current draft 2012 budget is $9,750,000.00. Down $3,106,952.00 from the high in 2006. The BPOL high was also in 2006 with total revenue collected at $5,893,564.00. BPOL revenues also dipped and in the 2012 draft budget they are projected at $5,395,000. A loss of $498,364.00 from the 2006 high. Because we have increased the meals tax rate, and modified the discounts paid for on-time filing of meals taxes, exact revenue numbers cannot be provided. But if one backs the recent increase to 2006 , meals tax revenues have been static at best, even with the number of new restaurants opening in the city.<br /><br />The 2011 budget projected significant decreased revenues in all three areas. As I understand it revenues did turn out better than expected but we have yet to reach 2006 levels. As noted, the projected increase in all three areas in the 2012 budget draft is only $830,000.00 above the projected 2011 budget figures. The projected increase in meals tax is only $180,000.00. The city is still digging itself out of a big hole. So how did we get here and what do we do to turn the economic picture around?<br /><br />The best explanation on our current state of affairs is provided by City Manager Bev Cameron in his cover letter to the 2010 City Financial Report in which he states, <em>"The dramatic national economic downturn of 2008, coupled with regional competition in the form of increased retail shopping and dining opportunities in neighboring counties, continued to adversely impact most local tax sources during fiscal year 2010. With mortgage foreclosures and unemployment rates at levels not seen in decades, and with real estate and stock market values still sharply down, a prolonged economic recovery seems likely."</em><br /><br />Even prior to the economic downturn the city knew that it had become overly reliant on retail development and needed to diversify its tax base. The city had already begun reducing revenue projections prior to 2007, recognizing the negative revenue impact of competition from Stafford and Spotsylvania. It was this recognition that played a role in developing the incentives program in the first place.<br /><br />The goals discussed for the incentives program were 1) To diversify the tax base focusing on higher end employment opportunities which would also help support retail; 2) Reduce the city's reliance on property tax; 3) Actively recruit business opportunities that not only achieved goals (1) and (2) but also fit or enhanced Fredericksburg's unique historic character.; and 4) That we look for unique opportunities especially those that brought visitors to the city. The measure of success would be a more stable and sustainable tax base as well as increased revenues while minimizing the tax impact on residents.<br /><br />To ensure its future Fredericksburg needs to keep the focus on the original goals discussed in setting up the incentives program. To fully understanding the current economic dynamics, and being pro-active in its economic development efforts. Unfortunately, the city seems prepared to offer incentives to those who ask, without considering other factors like competition or unique qualities, and ignore the importance of economic diversity. The city seems content to point to a handful of downtown restaurants as evidence of the success of the incentives program. However, the question arises, is that claim of success justified?<br /><br />As noted, the current revenue picture does not bear out the claim. Additionally, the staff's revenue projections for the coming year do not bear out the claim. What about the statements made that these incentives are examples of, "maintaining an income stream from non-property tax sources." As shown in the chart below the percentage of revenue from property taxes has increased. Revenue from non-property taxes has dropped or remained stagnant. The jump in meals tax percentage is due to the rise in the tax from 5% to 6%.<br /><br /><strong>Revenue Breakdown by Percentage</strong><br />.............................2009.......2010....2011.....2012<br />Real Estate.............30%........33%.......33%........34%<br />Sales Tax................14%........13%.......13%.........13%<br />Meals Tax................9%.........11%.......11%..........11%<br />BOL Tax..................7%..........7%.........7%...........7%<br />Lodging Tax............1%...........1%.........1%.........1%<br />Admissions Tax.......--.............--.............--..........--<br /><br />It is clear that the claims of success are a bit premature.<br /><br />I would acknowledge that the jury is still out on the incentives awarded to date. As noted I have my doubts as to whether, in the case of the downtown restaurants, the revenue impact will be as significant as presented. It should be pointed out that both Capital Ale and Kybecca are meeting their revenue goals. However, the impact on other restaurants cannot be determined beyond looking at the overall revenue figures. A bigger concern is that the City seems content with the direction the incentives program is going and is declaring success. Some have voiced concerns about the approval process but not the projects themselves.<br /><br />There are significant issues that need to be addressed. The city should hold off on further incentives to re-evaluate the incentives program from top to bottom. The city should not only deal with the process issues but ensure that its focus is on the original goals discussed. It is also important to make clear to the public what the city is trying to achieve with the incentive program and set out benchmarks to measure and ascertain success. The question is, based on council members' comments to date, whether they see any need for such discussions?<br /><br /><strong>What should the role of incentives in the city's future</strong><span style="color: blue;"> </span><span style="color: black;">?</span><br /><br />Adendum--Owners of The Bavarian Chef have advised me that they are also meeting incemtive benchmarks as per their agreement with the city.<br /><br /></div>http://questeverything.blogspot.com/2011/03/incentives-are-they-successful.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (MATT KELLY)3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4967431791857941720.post-164465279908573364Wed, 09 Feb 2011 11:00:00 +00002011-02-09T03:01:38.861-08:00Last Night's Council Meeting--IncentivesThe success of the incentives is being gauged on revenue projections. Last night staff projected increased revenues of $4 million over the next five years from downtown restaurants who have received incentives. A few questions-- What are those projections based on? Good points were made last night by Council members recognizing potential costs to the city for certain types of business which would affect the city's bottom line. And in the end, when using taxpayers' dollars, the city's bottom line is what is important. What about other factors that impact revenue projections such as competition and limited parking? And what about those projections?<br /><br />Two of the restaurants who are receiving incentives, Castiglias and Kybecca, are established businesses and are currently paying taxes to the city. In setting up projections are we counting their total revenues per year or just projected increases in revenue after improvements? In regards to the remaining restaurants, Capital Ale, Bavarian Chef and Longstreet's they took over from restaurants which failed. Are we factoring in the lost revenues to the city from the failed restaurants?<br /><br />Then there is the issue as to whether some of these restauraunts would have either located to Fredericksburg or made improvements without the incetives they were later give. Contrary to some statemetns made the incentive program was not intended to reward business. It was to help ensure the financial stablity of the city and keep the tax burden on city resdients as low as possible.<br /><br />The questions from Councilors Devine and Solley last night were good ones but they acknowledged that at this point the city has taken a passive approach to the incentives program. The concerns expressed were that any business could apply for incentives. This approach was confirmed by staff that at this point the city is waiting for businesses to apply. The primary intent of the program was not to be passive; or to just make it easier for existing businesses to apply, but rather to pro-active in attracting businesses which met long term goals of economic diversity, sustainability, and attracting businesses that fit the city's character. It's about having the resources to help provide a good quality of life without becoming a financial burden to residents.<br /><br />The incentive program can help Fredericksburg meet its goal of financial stability while providing an affordable and good quality of life for residents. To date the program has had a positive impact. However, it's time to reevaluate and make changes to the program to ensure it is meeting the goals originally established and that the effort is being made to achieve them. However, one got the sense last night that while Council may be prepared to make some small changes, it is prepared to call the incentives program a success-- simply based on revenue projections. What about sustainability, higher paying jobs, diversifying the city tax base, and city character?http://questeverything.blogspot.com/2011/02/last-nights-council-meeting-incentives.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (MATT KELLY)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4967431791857941720.post-5528992626348251899Sat, 05 Feb 2011 18:11:00 +00002011-02-07T08:07:29.733-08:00Incentives--From Where We Came to Where We AreSome thoughts after reading today's story on incentives in the Free-Lance Star:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2011/022011/02052011/604459">http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2011/022011/02052011/604459</a><br /><br />Incentives should be used to meet economic development goals. Goals which as originally discussed must look beyond just direct impacts of jobs and revenues to include diversification of our tax base, sustainability, more higher paying jobs, and compatibility with the city's character.<br /><br />In setting up the incentives program it was important to place benchmarks like jobs , revenues, and capital investment to be achieved before tax dollars and fees would be reimbursed. We have dealt with the direct impacts and seem to have stopped and there have been consequences.<br />For downtown an existing business creating 5 jobs, and $125,000 capital investment and 10 jobs and $250,000 capital investment, are the benchmark for qualifying for incentives. As for job creation we are not differentiating between a $25,000 a year job and a $125,000 a year job. If we take into consideration the costs associated with those jobs the return to the city could also be negatively affected. In regards to capital investment we are looking at revenues to the city of only from $1,000 to $2,150 a year based on the current real estate tax rate. How much of a return are we actually getting? As for revenues projections we base them only on the business' projections but not on the potential impact on other businesses.<br /><br />Case in point, a new restaurant downtown would probably have a negative impact other downtown restaurants' revenue. Just providing incentives for one sector, i.e., restaurants for example, can be counterproductive.<br /><br />The benchmarks for Celebrate VA and Eagle Village are 25 jobs and $500,000 capital investment which seems low knowing what type of businesses are planned for those areas. It should also be noted that we have since tweaked our incentive programs to bring them in line with our neighbors. Based on the first come first serve approach one has to question the validity of the incentives program. It should also be remembered than one of our goals was to get away from our reliance on retail/service.<br /><br />We are failing on two counts. We have forgotten some significant reasons we had for implementing incentives in the first place--diversity, sustainability, more higher paying jobs, and compatibility with the city's character (I'll deal with the Kalahari comments as they come). Secondly, they were put in place so that the city could pro-actively work towards achieving diversity, sustainability, more higher paying jobs, and fitting the city character. It time to reevaluate where we are with incentives and also take a moment to provide the community with the vision of what is to be achieved with them.<br /><br /><strong>Is there a role for incentives in Fredericksburg?</strong>http://questeverything.blogspot.com/2011/02/incentives-from-where-we-came-to-where.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (MATT KELLY)4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4967431791857941720.post-7104790458912571649Sun, 16 Jan 2011 21:19:00 +00002011-01-16T13:34:27.497-08:00The Fourth Estate And The Courts IssueThe local press has done a good job informing the public on the events and comments made by all sides relate to the courts issue. However, is reporting on events and quoting officials enough? The issues surrounding the courts have now been under discussion for a little over five years. Have city residents been provided sufficient information to come to an informed conclusion? Based on conversations with residents, following on-line discussions, and e-mails, a lot of questions remain. The question before us is what should we realistically expect from the press in covering an issue of this complexity?<br /><br />It should be made clear that informing the public on issues like the courts rests with elected officials. While we cannot expect those officials to vote the way we want them to; we can, and should, expect them to make their positions clear, address the pros and cons of a particular action, answer questions, and address concerns. Most would expect the role of the press should be to provide background, clarify positions, at times question those positions, and insure all questions and concerns are addressed. Using this criteria let's review some examples of the press coverage on the Council's last work session with Judge Willis.<br /><br />FredericksburgPatch, a new on-line news source, provided a good overview of the comments made at the meeting. <strong>Judge Urges Action on Court Facilities</strong>--<br /><a href="http://fredericksburg.patch.com/articles/judge-urges-action-on-court-facilities">http://fredericksburg.patch.com/articles/judge-urges-action-on-court-facilities</a><br />However, the story did not go beyond just quoting the participants, leaving a lot of questions unanswered. The Vice-Mayor stated, <em><span style="color:#000066;">"We have the potential to handle substantial debt," said Greenlaw, noting that the cost to borrow money is "about as cheap as it's ever going to be</span></em>." This statement begs a number of questions. How does the Vice-Mayor support her position that the city can handle substantial debt? How is this debt going to be paid for? What impacts will taking on this debt have on other city projects and on the city bond rating?<br /><br />Judge Willis was quoted as saying in regard to the city providing new court facilities, <em><span style="color:#000066;">"It's also a legal obligation," said Willis. "If you neglect your lawful obligations, there can be repercussions."</span></em> Again, no follow-up. What repercussions? Was Judge Willis referring to state code 15.2-1643? What are his views on the General Assembly's vote to place a moratorium on judicial action as outlined in 15.2-1643 through 2012? And most importantly--What exactly are a locality's obligation to the courts?<br /><br />In the Free-Lance Star story, <strong>Long-Term Court Fix Urged</strong>,<br /><a href="http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2011/012011/01122011/600259">http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2011/012011/01122011/600259</a><br />the reader is given a good overview of the meeting to include pointing out some inaccuracies in statements made. It was pointed out in the story that Judge Willis' statement related to a possible regional option was inaccurate. "<em><span style="color:#000066;">Willis discouraged council members from spending time looking at developing a regional courts system with a neighboring locality to share some of that burden. "I think you're going to find it's not possible."</span></em> The reporter did note that in fact there exist regional court facilities in the state. However, there is no further clarification-- Is it a realistic option for the city? What is the status of court needs in Spotsylvania and Stafford our potential partners? How do the other regional court systems work? Are they really cost effective?<br /><br />Judge Willis was also quoted regarding rising case loads, <em><span style="color:#000066;">"Willis said the system is already exceeding those projections by five years, as the Interstate 95 corridor and the density of housing--particularly rental properties--in the city drive crime rates up."</span></em> Some follow-up questions to ask--Are there procedural changes that could impact case loads? What impacts will technology have on courts in the future? What impact has unfilled judgeships had on caseloads?<br /><br />Both stories provided a good overview of what was discussed at the meeting. What I believe is missing is accountability on the part of the participants to justify their positions and have them tested. What is not being discussed is also an issue. A number of legitimate questions have been asked regarding the courts that remain unanswered. Because the stories focus on the particulars of the meeting, and are limited to the comments made, other questions are not being addressed. The participants seem to control the story. If they don't talk about it it's not going to be covered.<br /><br />It should be pretty clear from the number of questions that could be asked from the few examples provided that this is a complex issue and we cannot expect to see everything covered in a single story. However, that does not preclude follow-up stories focusing on one aspect of the courts debate. To date most stories seem to have been driven by meetings and not by an effort to explain a complex issue to the public.<br /><br />These observation are not a reflection on the reporters themselves. One has to be impressed with how a reporter can write a news story understanding that they are subject to deadlines, cooperation of the individuals involved in the story, space limitations, competing stories, and the whims of editors. A number of these limitations are outside the reporters direct control--You can't make someone answer a question for example. Also it should be understood that the length, subject and angle of a story is ultimately in the hands of an editor. Some important decisions concerning coverage of the courts issue will have to come from a higher level.<br /><br />This brings us back to the question of what we can realistically expect from the press on covering a story like this? It should be understood that I have no background in journalism and have no specific answers regarding what we should expect--only more questions. I'm hoping others with more experience and talent will put their two cents into this discussion.<br /><br />For my part, acknowledging that I am getting a bit redundant, the courts issue is potentially the most expensive capital project in the city's history. Embarking on it at a time of great economic uncertainty has serious implications to the city's future well being. The issue deserves a thorough debate and the reality is the press has a part to play. Not only of informing the public on what is being said; but more importantly, making sure all the questions are being asked, and answered.<br /><br /><strong>What is your opinion of the press coverage of the courts issue?</strong>http://questeverything.blogspot.com/2011/01/fourth-estate-and-courts-issue.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (MATT KELLY)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4967431791857941720.post-3518079105185927933Wed, 12 Jan 2011 03:24:00 +00002011-01-11T19:34:40.839-08:00Tonight's Work Session With Judge WillisA quick synopsis of tonight's Council work session with Judge Willis--<br /><br />1. From Judge Willis--Those opposed to court construction at this time have a political agenda.<br /><br />2. From Judge Willis--By state law Virginia jurisdictions must have their own court facilities so stop talking about regional solutions. Somebody needs to tell Prince William County/ Manassas/ Manassas Park and Frederick Co./Winchester and I think four other jurisdiction that they are breaking the law by having joint court facilities.<br /><br />3. Mayor Tomzak thanked Judge Willis for clearing that up the fallacy of a regional approach. City staff did not saying anything. Not quite true. City Attorney Dooley acknowledged after the meeting was over that there are multi-jurisdictional court facilities in the state.<br /><br />4. Councilwoman Greenlaw--The city has low taxes, is in good financial shape compared to most, interest rates are low, the city should get a cheaper bids now that the economy is in the tanks, so this would be a good time to move forward.<br /><br />5. Councilwoman Devine--Building the court should be a city priority however she did acknowledge we are faced with the worst economy in a generation which may slow things down but she feels the Council is committed to building a new court facility.<br /><br />6. Judge Willis--When questioned about the dire financial picture, other city priorities, and trying to maintain services, and whether he would consider some short term security fixes the answer was no. We must have new facilities. He is looking for Council to keep moving on the two year time line stating that the financial situation will improve.<br /><br />7. Judge Willis--The Council has done its due diligence and needs to move forward with picking a new construction plan now and get the job done.<br /><br />What was not asked or discussed:<br /><br />1. Council has referred to the need for new court facilities as a, "moral obligation." How should the city's obligations to other city services such as public safety and education be described?<br /><br />2. In the Moseley Report, put out before the economic downturn, staff stated that, "a cost of more than about $30 million for new court facilities is not affordable for the City at this time." What has changed in the city's financial picture which justifies spending more now?<br /><br />3. Staff recommended back in 2006 building on the JDR site--Princess Anne Option C. Why did the Council majority support other options such as the post office, or even the current plan, which exceeded the staff budget recommendations?<br /><br />4. How will moving forward with the court facilities as planned will affect the City's bond rating?<br /><br />5. Will moving forward with the court project as currently planned have a negative impact on City priorities and city services?<br /><br />6. How will the added debt service for the courts affect city capital projects in the future?<br /><br />7. Staff has said that a tax increase will be required to move forward with the courts. Staff is also recommending tax increases for employee salaries and we can expect the same from the schools. How much of an increase are we looking at for the courts as well as to cover other city priorities?<br />8. Residential property values have continued to drop and we are facing a significant drop in commercial real estate values when we do the next assessment. The real estate tax rate will have to be increased to just to have revenues break even. How has this been factored in to the decision to move forward with increasing city debt for the courts?<br /><br />9. Have any other groups outside staff, judges and consultants been contacted about the scope and needs of the courts?<br /><br />10. How will technology play into the future court needs?<br /><br />11. When will there be a public presentation to city residents giving them an opportunity to comment as well as receiving an explanation regarding the costs and impact of this project on city priorities and services? They are going to have to pay for it.<br /><br />I know you have heard this all before but these questions still remain unanswered.<br /><br /><strong>What questions would you like to see answered regarding new Court Facilities?</strong>http://questeverything.blogspot.com/2011/01/tonights-work-session-with-judge-willis.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (MATT KELLY)3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4967431791857941720.post-5116787509514848679Thu, 23 Dec 2010 02:34:00 +00002010-12-22T18:48:08.373-08:00Arts District--Are We Helping the Arts?The new Arts and Cultural District <a href="http://fredericksburgva.gov/agenda/2010/1214/8d.pdf">http://fredericksburgva.gov/agenda/2010/1214/8d.pdf</a><br />provides a BPOL (Business, Professional, Occupational, Licenses)tax reimbursement to qualifying existing arts establishments of up to a maximum of $250.00 a year for five years. Businesses within the zone that are not arts related but put aside at least 120 square feet for the display of local art also qualifies for the BPOL reduction. There is also provisions for the waiver of city fees of up to $2,000.00 for a new arts business or an expansion of at least 30%. New or expanded arts businesses also qualify for 100% BPOL reimbursement for five years. The total cost of the Arts District in revenue to the city for a year is projected at $11,500.00. There are no revenue or job creation requirements as with the city's other economic development zones. So, how much of a benefit is this ordinance to both the city's art community and the city itself?<br /><br />The yearly BPOL reimbursement figure is set at $6,500.00 and is based on (40) businesses currently meeting the criteria. That translates to an average reimbursement of only $162.50 a year. For most of the businesses directly related to the arts that average BPOL benefit is probably less if one considers that the number of businesses qualifying include restaurants providing 120 square feet of display space, which will have gross receipts to qualify them for the entire $250.00 reimbursement. If we set the number of restaurants qualifying at say (6) their total reimbursement would be $1,500.00 a year. The average for the remaining (34) businesses would decline to $147.06. Even a $250.00 reimbursement a year will have a negligible impact on the businesses involved.<br /><br />The same will be the case with new and expanded arts related businesses that qualify for the 100% BPOL tax reimbursement . There is no question that the arts community (including local musicians and bands) are both a cultural and economic asset to the city. They attract visitors from the region and beyond. And after enjoying the arts these visitors eat, shop, and sleep in our city. But if one looks at the typical business model for an arts establishment the profit margin is not great. A few hundred dollars a year probably won't even cover the light bill let alone impact capital or operational costs.<br /><br />The reimbursement of city fees up to $2,000.00 per project also raises some questions. The cost of renovations, especially within the city's Historic District, and new construction, will be in the 100s of thousands of dollars. Don't believe a one-time waiver of fees is going to tip the scales much in deciding whether or not to locate in the Arts District. Also considering that a large part of the Arts District is in the Historic District the question becomes how much expansion is realistically possible and how much would we really want?<br /><br />Under the ordinance if a business takes advantage of the tax and fee breaks accorded by the Arts District they are barred from apply for any other incentive program. The city already has both a Tourism Zone(TZ), in which "theaters, cultural arts centers" qualify; and a Historic District Tax Credit (HDTC) program, both that overlap with the Arts District. They do have requirements of their own--performance measures in the case of the TZ and investment criteria with the HDTC. But the benefits to these two are greater than what is applicable to the Arts District. This leads to two questions, 1) Why not consolidate as opposed to just creating new districts and zones in the same areas. 2) If we agree that the arts community is important to the city both culturally and economically should it receive less support than any other type of business?<br /><br />I do believe the city's arts community is important and should be supported--through marketing, joint ventures with the city, and yes some tax breaks. The job of both the arts community and the city to make the case to the city residents that with some creative thinking, and investment of time and money, by all parties, we can create a win win situation for the arts community and the city. The establishment of the Arts District looks to be more symbolic than substantive. The city can now say they recognize our arts community and that about all the arts community is getting.<br /><br /><strong>How much support should we be providing the arts community? Should we be providing incentives for business at all?</strong>http://questeverything.blogspot.com/2010/12/arts-district-are-we-helping-arts.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (MATT KELLY)3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4967431791857941720.post-6298937382675341577Sat, 27 Nov 2010 19:56:00 +00002011-02-14T15:00:36.981-08:00The National Citizens SurveyCity Council just approved the expenditure of $11,400.00 to proceed with sending the National Citizens Survey to 1200 city residents. <a href="http://icma.org/en/results/surveying/national_citizen_survey">http://icma.org/en/results/surveying/national_citizen_survey</a> (PDF file for 2101 City Survey Instrument at the bottom of the page) The basis for this action is, "to improve communication between the city and the community." <a href="http://fredericksburgva.gov/agenda/2010/1123/11i.pdf">http://fredericksburgva.gov/agenda/2010/1123/11i.pdf</a> Does this effort achieve its goal?<br /><br />In filling out the National Citizens Survey the respondent will be asked to rate the quality of service from (1) excellent to (4) poor, with (5) being check for-- don't know. One of the many areas to be rated is street repair. Let's take a look at two residents on Stafford Ave. responding to this question based on recent events. In this case both residents mark street repair as (4) poor.<br /><br />Resident #1's reason for the poor rating is because the bump outs recently installed have not yet been removed which are considered by some as traffic hazards. Resident #2's poor rating for street repair is based on the fact that the bump outs are being taken out which are viewed by others as helping to slow down traffic on Stafford Ave.<br /><br />Another question hitting close to home relates to rating economic development. Again both respondents rate the city's efforts as poor. Respondent #1 because projects like Kalahari detracts from the city's historic character. Respondent #2 because the city needs to do more to attract development like Kalahari thereby creating more jobs and increased business revenue so their real estate taxes don't go up. The survey cannot reconcile opposing views that are derived from the same answer.<br /><br />Another potential poor response on street repair would be related to the common complaint regarding the repaving of streets or the perceived need for more traffic signs. Paving, for the most part, is prioritized based on safety, road conditions and use. Most traffic engineers would tell you that more traffic signs by themselves do not necessarily change driver's habits and can actually present a hazard themselves. The survey cannot address the conflict of wants versus logical priorities, best practices, and even costs.<br /><br />A number of the questions are not related directly to local government. Covering issues related more to the state and federal government. Other cover issues not related to government at all, religious worship and volunteering opportunities, quality of social events etc. There are some questions that will probably not directly related to the respondent--rating zoning, bus service, code issues. In short the National Citizens Survey is a basic one size fits all approach. Though I should point out that one local policy question of the city's choice will be added. I have included a link to the survey above and encourage you to take a look.<br /><br />The answers regarding city services will, for the most part, be based on the conditions in the neighborhood where the respondent resides. Residents of College Heights which has sidewalks will have a different take on them than will residents in Braehead Woods which does not have sidewalks. The diversity of the city's neighborhoods cannot be addressed in this survey.<br /><br />It should be pointed out that city staff does not need a survey to tell them about resident issues. They have a pretty good handle on them. The question is having the resources to deal with them. Another piece of the equation that a survey is not going to help with.<br /><br />So what do we get for this $11,400.00 survey process? A general sense of the level of satisfaction not based on the current realities the city faces; without any indication of the issues on which the answers are based. Under these conditions how useful can this information be? How is this effort improving communication when the respondent doesn't get to expand on their answers or have the opportunity to ask questions?<br /><br />Fredericksburg is small enough where direct interaction between city representatives and residents through neighborhood meetings, public hearings, and even chats at the grocery store, should still be the primary approach the city takes in communicating with the community. We have a community infrastructure--Lets use it.<br /><br />Over the years the city has gone through community reviews like, Visions 2000, Concordia, and most recently, extensive community involvement in the Comprehensive Plan. This process not only brought out debate on the issues but also required well reasoned responses to the questions and concerns expressed by the community.<br /><br />Fredericksburg has a unique character. There are issues the city faces regarding not only maintaining its character but also the quality of life it offers. They are, in a number of cases, complex. A one dimensional one size fits all approach of the National Citizens Survey will not move the discussion on those issues forward. What it will provide are results that could be subject to a number of interpretations and not in context.<br /><br />Council members will be quick to point out that communications with the community as outlined above will continue. If that is the case, then they need to answer the question of why do we need to spend $11,400.00 on a generic survey? If City Council is truly interested in improving communications between the city and the community then they need to increase efforts to engage the community directly. The give and take of a community dialogue is the definition of communication.<br /><br /><strong>Do you consider sending out a survey an improvement in city and community communication?</strong>http://questeverything.blogspot.com/2010/11/national-citizens-survey.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (MATT KELLY)2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4967431791857941720.post-5834077833683040857Tue, 16 Nov 2010 02:23:00 +00002010-11-15T18:45:30.790-08:00Business as Usual or Do What Needs to Be Done?<span style="color:#000066;"><em></em></span><br /><span style="color:#000066;"><em>" The most damaging phrase in the language is: “It’s always been done that way.”<br /></em></span><strong>Rear Admiral Grace Hooper<br /></strong><br />No matter the adversity there are always opportunities. While presenting significant challenges to local governments in providing levels of service expected by residents; the current precipitous downturn in the economy has given us a good kick in our complacency. Cutting spending by itself is not the answer. Neither is raising taxes when both residents and business are also under significant financial stress. With no end to this situation in the foreseeable future local government must abandon, " the business as usual approach." Instead it must not only restructure itself to do more with less; but also take a long term pro-active approach in planning for development which is sustainable, less susceptible to fluctuations in the economy, and provide the needed revenues to support the services residents expect.<br /><br />For Fredericksburg future development is the key to whether it can remain an independent city. A recent decision by the City Council, and one about to come before them, will provide some insight as to what road we are about to take--The one we know or the one we need to take.<br /><br />City Council just approved without comment a change in definitions for I-2 zoning to allow, "transportation recycling facility" (auto junk yards are still excluded) as a Special Use. They then proceeded to grant an Special Use Permit to M &amp; M Auto in the Industrial Park to sell recycled auto parts. It was claimed that 67 jobs would be created over the next five years.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/112010/11112010/587471">http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/112010/11112010/587471</a><br /><br />One could make a rational argument for such a facility in an industrial park. Jobs are created and revenue will be generated. That is if we accept the, "business as usual" model. <a href="http://fredericksburgva.gov/agenda/2010/1109/6a.pdf">http://fredericksburgva.gov/agenda/2010/1109/6a.pdf</a> Text Amendment<br /><a href="http://fredericksburgva.gov/agenda/2010/1109/6b.pdf">http://fredericksburgva.gov/agenda/2010/1109/6b.pdf</a> Approval of SUP<br />If we are to take a more long term approach to development to meet the goals of sustainability, stability, and enhanced revenues, this decision by Council raises a question. Is Industrial zoning in the city's best long term interest?<br /><br />Even in the recently adopted City Comprehensive Plan it recommends that, <em><span style="color:#000066;">" rezoning portions of the Blue and Gray Parkway corridor from industrial to commercial uses, which reflects long-term City planning." </span></em>This entire area would be a good location for a mixed use development which would provide a more diversified workforce and tax base. I would also hazard a guess that the revenue potential would be higher than the existing use.<br /><br />The city's industrial park borders the Fredericksburg National Battlefield Park along Lee Drive. It is also visible from other parts of the battlefield. I do not believe anyone would question the importance of the National Park to the future economic viability of the city. Yet, under I-2 zoning (Section 78-682 Division 22 of the City Code) building heights can be up to 50' by-right and 90 feet by Special Use Permit.<br /><br />There was a significant outcry from the community the last time a large building was up for approval (I-Max) on the basis of its impact on the battlefield view shed. While this project involved a structure of a height requiring a Special Use Permit a building of 50 feet, depending on its location could have an equally negative impact of the battlefield view shed. Quite a few years have passed and yet that scenario is still facing us.<br /><br />It is understood that there are businesses in the industrial park that do employ residents and generate revenue for the city. It is not my intent to belittle what they provide. If there is an argument to be made that maintaining the industrial park is in the city's best long term interest then it needs to be made. That is the question before us. With only 10.4 square miles to work with to generate the revenue to provide services and keep the tax burden down on residents; what is the best use of our available land? And at the same time how do we preserve what makes Fredericksburg unique?<br /><br />The issue now coming before the city relates again to the possible impact on Fredericksburg unique character, future revenues, and quality of life. The development of the Roper Brother's property across from the Fredericksburg National Battlefield Park entrance at Lee Drive. In this case the city has taken steps to both protect the battlefield as well as plan for transportation needs along the entire Lafayette Blvd corridor. The question at hand is whether the city is prepared to ensure that those plans are followed.<br /><br />Before the Planning Commission is a proposed by-right development for 88-single family homes on what the City's Comprehensive Plan refers to as Parcel 10-A.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/112010/11122010/587821">http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/112010/11122010/587821</a><br /><br />In the Comp Plan the preferred use for this parcel is mixed-use. Below are some highlights from the city's Comprehensive Plan as they relate to this parcel and preservation:<br /><br />• Require comprehensive traffic impact studies for new development, including identifying<br />impacts and mitigation strategies for all modes of transportation.<br /><br />• Consider Lafayette Boulevard as the next JumpStart! corridor for development of design guidelines.<br /><br />• Any significant development on Lafayette Boulevard, opposite Lee Drive, will need to be carefully coordinated with the National Park Service.<br /><br />• An exceptionally significant site is located in the southwest quadrant of Lafayette Boulevard and the Blue Gray Parkway. Its development, however, will need to respect the National Park property at Lee Drive.<br /><br />• This parcel has extensive frontage along Lafayette Boulevard, but only a few areas are suitable for a new intersection. The Fredericksburg-Spotsylvania National Military Park has a major gateway on the east side of Lafayette Boulevard, opposite this parcel and a careful coordination with the National Park Service will be necessary when development plans are considered. The proposed use of the site is mixed use.<br /><br />• Examine ways to encourage the preservation and/or enhancement of historic assets throughout the planning process.<br /><br />• Redevelop the area at Lafayette Boulevard and the Blue and Gray Parkway in close coordination with the National Park Service.<br /><br />In addition to the Comprehensive Plan, the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) developed a long-term transportation plan for the entire Lafayette Blvd corridor from downtown to Rt. 1 to include pedestrian access and protection of the battlefield park. The plan was developed in close consultation with the National Park Service (See Comp Plan highlights). This plan was endorsed by both the City Council and the Spotsylvania Board of Supervisors.<br /><br /> <a href="http://www.fampo.gwregion.org/lafayetteblvdmultimodalcorridorstudy.html">http://www.fampo.gwregion.org/lafayetteblvdmultimodalcorridorstudy.html</a><br /><br />While Eagle Village was the first project to come under the city's new mixed-use zoning it was developed in part with the Roper Brother's property in mind. All discussions with the developer of this property, until recently, was for a mixed-use project. One of the advantages to the city of developing this property as mixed-use would be that the city could ensure, through the proffer process, that the traffic impacts on Lafayette Blvd could be addressed and the battlefield protected. In short we would follow the plans the city had adopted.<br /><br />What has happened is that the developer has proposed by-right residential development with a statement that the commercial component would come at some undefined time in the future. Under this scenario the city has no real leverage to ensure that the goals it has set forth will be considered and the traffic impact of this project, on an already sub-standard road, will not be addressed. There is also the possibility, depending on the final road plans for this project, that the long term plan for Lafayette Blvd. , and the visitor's experience to the battlefield park, will be compromised.<br /><br />To be fair to the developer it is understood that the economic conditions are not good and that this is impacting their decisions regarding this project. It is also understood that the long-term Lafayette Blvd improvements are expensive and the developer cannot be expected to bear a significant portion of the cost. However, should the city for its part, have to settle for even more congestion on Lafayette Blvd? Should the city accept the degradation of the battlefield which has a major impact on our economy ? A lot more discussion and planning needs to be completed before any votes are taken on this project . The question is--Will it happen?<br /><br />The "business as usual approach" would be to throw-up our hands and let the development move forward as is defending the action (inaction) by pointing to the by-right use and stating there is nothing we can do. If the city is serious about achieving the goals it has set forth it may have to oppose this project on the grounds it is in conflict with the city's Comprehensive Plan and transportation goals. It should be made clear that such an action could come with costs, such as litigation; but I do believe to take the "business as usual" approach will end up costing the city a lot more in the future.<br /><br />It is easy to just take the line of least resistance and do things as they have always been done. To take a short term "gain" and not worry about the long term consequences. One decision has been made which I hope will spur further discussion on the best use of our limited resource--developable land. A decision is forthcoming which will define how serious the city is in ensuring its future. The city can no longer afford to continue with "business as usual" and must start taking a longer view if Fredericksburg is going to remain an economically viable city that provides a good quality, and affordable, life for its residents.<br /><br /><strong>How do you view the city's future?</strong>http://questeverything.blogspot.com/2010/11/business-as-usual-or-do-what-needs-to.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (MATT KELLY)3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4967431791857941720.post-8674595009086663931Sun, 19 Sep 2010 16:19:00 +00002010-09-19T09:29:53.469-07:00Let's Get Ready to Rumble...................I believe it was Thomas Paine who wrote-- It is through debate and argument that the best solutions come forward. If he didn't say it I'll take the credit. To properly debate an issue involves more than just putting forward a position. You must both understand, and be able to address, the points made by those presenting the opposing view. To really make this concept work you also have to be willing to accept the premise that the opposing view may have some merit.<br /><br />Unfortunately today we approach debate as an "either/or" proposition. We have also punted the Tom Paine approach of finding the best solutions through debate and adopted the Elbert Hubbard approach, <em><span style="color:#000066;">"If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.”</span></em> But wait there's worse. Now elected officials are trying to avoid debate all together.<br /><br />It seems some elected officials have taken a lesson from one of the master of backroom politics, Lyndon Johnson, who said, <span style="color:#000066;"><em>"You've got to work things out in the cloakroom, and when you've got them worked out, you can debate a little before you vote."</em></span> The focus is getting a consensus, i.e., four votes on Council, on an issue. Once achieved anything that may threaten that consensus, i.e., public debate, is avoided. Instead of seeing public debate for what it is-- testing the validity of a position, provide different perspectives and approaches to consider; it is seen as only unwanted criticism or politically motivated attacks which could threaten the established consensus.<br /><br />A number of excuses are put forward to avoid public debate. The two most often heard are that no one shows up for public hearings and/or the same old--insert preferred derogatory description here (See Elbert Hubbard comment above)--people show up. Neither case abrogates an elected officials responsibility to make their position clear to the public and address any and all questions, or concerns expressed, regardless of who puts them forward.<br /><br />People may not show up in great numbers to attend a public hearing. But if the public is not given an opportunity to voice their opinions before a vote the question will be asked- Why wasn't the public given that opportunity? Or if given the opportunity to comment, and some of those questions come from the, "same old (see above) crowd", or viewed as politically motivate, does that in itself invalidate the question or concerns expressed?<br /><br />Another factor that plays into the decision to avoid debate is viewing it as a win or lose proposition. That during the debate "flaws" in a position may come to light or a question is asked for which there is no ready answer and someone is perceived as, "ill informed." As painful as it sometimes is we all are prone to error and we can't be expected to have all the answers. It's called human nature and I've never understood why in the political arena we go out of our way to deny our inherent fallibility. One would think that dealing with the "flaws" or taking the time to answer the question before an action is taken will better ensure success.<br /><br />Finally, for elected officials to be really prepared for debating an issue requires going beyond the information provided by staff. Too often staff presentation either reflect the "consensus" view or that of the staff. There are other solutions out there to be considered and should be brought forward for public discussion. It is up to the elected official to understand all the options and be prepared to debate the merits or faults in all of them.<br /><br />Ultimately it is the elected official that cast the vote that impacts their community. They, not staff, are responsible for explaining that vote and giving the community every possible opportunity to voice their opinions, questions and concerns. There are no valid excuses to avoid this process.<br /><br />There does come a point when the debate comes full circle and the same arguments or concerns begin to be repeated. There will never be complete agreement on any issue. All that anyone can expect is to have their questions answered and or their concerns addressed. Hopefully, after a thorough and inclusive debate everyone will have a better understanding of the issue and a solution that reflects that understanding will be the result. Elected officials should be expect to embrace debate--not avoid it.<br /><br /><strong>Are our elected officials providing the proper forum for discussing the important issues of the day?</strong>http://questeverything.blogspot.com/2010/09/lets-get-ready-to-rumble.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (MATT KELLY)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4967431791857941720.post-57986197826640596Fri, 10 Sep 2010 01:08:00 +00002010-09-09T19:05:16.859-07:00Courts--A Done Deal?At next Tuesday's Council meeting staff will be asking for Council blessing to solicit PPEA (Public-Private Educational Facilities Infrastructure Act) proposals on all concepts brought forward to date regarding court improvements--including all the proposals in the Mosley Report , the post office site, Glave's proposal, (the current Council majority favorite), and the Executive Plaza proposal put forward by Councilman Fred Howe. The resolution's, <a href="http://fredericksburgva.gov/agenda/2010/0914/10b">http://fredericksburgva.gov/agenda/2010/0914/10b</a>, goal is , " ..to obtain competitive negotiable proposals for various court proposal options to meet the long-term facility and space needs of the Fredericksburg court system." So if passed by Council what does this mean?<br /><br />1. Any thought of coming up with solutions that address court needs while recognizing the financial constraints the city faces are gone. The Council majority is intent on meeting, "the long-term facility and space needs," of the courts. Translated Council is prepared to sacrifice the city's priorities to meet court needs. They are also prepared to significantly raises taxes, endanger the city's bond rating, for the largest capital project in the city's history which will have negligible benefit to city residents who will have to pay for it.<br /><br />2. What private design/build team is going to make the investment in time and money on a proposal which does not have the support of a majority of the Council? It is clear that the Executive Plaza proposal does not have majority support. A majority of the Council has at least acknowledged that the post office option is cost prohibitive. The Moseley options were ignored by most of Council because they didn't meet, in their view, all of the courts' future needs. The only proposal that has been endorsed by Council is the Glave Holmes scheme #5, <a href="http://fredericksburgva.gov/agenda/2009/1124/9c.pdf">http://fredericksburgva.gov/agenda/2009/1124/9c.pdf</a> , which passed 6-1 at the Council meeting of November 24, 2009. Council is also prepared to endorse the move of the downtown fire station which is a major component of the Glave Holmes proposal. So how many different site proposals do you expect the city will received? If this resolution passes it is an endorsement of the Glave Holmes proposal.<br /><br />3. Finally, and most importantly, the passage of this resolution, "Approving the Process for Courthouse Development and Planning Using the Public Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002," will mean Council is not prepared to explain to city residents the impact of this project on the city and deprive them of any opportunity to voice their concerns about a project which they will be expected to pay for.<br /><br />There is no doubt that staff will defend this resolution Tuesday night and take issue that it is not an endorsement of any one proposal. They will also make their case that this vote is not a commitment on the expenditure of funds. I am prepared to debate these points and the issues of court vs. city needs. But what about the Council itself? When are those members who are intent on meeting, "the long-term facility and space needs of the Fredericksburg court system," planning to join this debate?<br /><br /><strong>Do you have a different read on this resolution?</strong>http://questeverything.blogspot.com/2010/09/courts-done-deal.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (MATT KELLY)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4967431791857941720.post-5633956908522509803Thu, 02 Sep 2010 17:12:00 +00002010-09-02T11:55:59.167-07:00Is This Enough Or Should We Expect More?Took my lunch break today to go through the Free Lance-Star archives from January 1, 2006 through today looking at all the stories on the Courts project. Thought it would be interesting to see the comments made by the members on the Council majority who support moving forward with new court facilities to see if one could get an insight into their thinking on the courts. Also to address the comment that has been made by some that we have had a public discussion for the past 4 years and need to move on. The Free Lance-Star is the forum for public information for the city so let's see if the majority has answered the questions put forward in my last post.<br /><br />The Free Lance-Star has done a great job in covering the courts issue. While the comments from these Council members maybe sparse it does not reflect the number of stories written on the subject. Anyone following the discussions on the court in the paper should be well versed on the issue. What is lacking is any explanation from the Council on the impact this project will have on the city and city taxpayers.<br /><br />I would point out that Mary Katherine Greenlaw has only been serving the past two years. I have also listed the dates of the stories should one want to go and read the entire story.<br /><br /><strong>Tomzak:</strong><br /><strong>8/25/10</strong>--"We'll be talking more about this in public."<br /><br /><strong>7/30/10</strong>--"The massing and scaling is unacceptable," Tomzak said of Howe's proposed addition. "The long-term goal is to eventually either trim down or remove the Executive Plaza. This would double it in size, and it would remain in perpetuity."<br /><br /><strong>11/25/2009</strong>--"If something happens in that courthouse, with all the public discussion and the studies that have taken place, the city is going to have tremendous liability," he said.<br /><br /><strong>1/27/20090</strong>--"The economy has really gone downhill, and we're going to have to pass some of these decisions on to other councils," Tomzak said.<br /><br /><strong>12/10/2008</strong>--Fredericksburg Mayor Tom Tomzak said last night that Circuit Court judges have an indirect power to tax city residents.... "I don't like it any more than anybody else," Tomzak said.<br /><br /><strong>12/3/2008</strong>--"I think if we don't do it now we will be ordered to do it," Tomzak said. "There is political cover in being ordered to do it. I just don't think it's the right thing to do."<br /><br /><strong>8/3/2008</strong>--"The citizens of Fredericksburg are going to spend $60 million-plus on the courthouse, and they need 21st-century technology," Tomzak said.<br /><br /><strong>12/12/2007</strong>--"We are between a rock and a hard place," Tomzak told Scott at a work session before last night's meeting. "We want to get as much cover as possible that this is not a discretionary move on the part of the council to spend all this taxpayer money."<br /><br /><strong>Kerry Devine:</strong><br /><strong>12/10/2008</strong>--"When we stop working toward the goal of a courthouse facility, that's when that order gets imposed," Devine said. "What's best for the city of Fredericksburg may be for Fredericksburg to stay in control of this project."<br /><br /><strong>12/3/2008</strong>--"We're not rushing into this," she said. "By the time we get it built, one would hope we'd be in better financial shape."<br /><br /><strong>12/12/2007</strong>-"As long as I keep hearing from the Keating group that we can move forward on that site, I think that gives me the assurances I need," said Vice Mayor Kerry Devine. "Had we been able to secure that earlier, I think we would have made this decision earlier."<br /><br /><strong>12/9/2007</strong>--Still, Devine said, the focus of the Comprehensive Plan, JumpStart, the riverfront park and other initiatives has been "to really work with our downtown community and keep the focus downtown."<br /><br />"I just think if we then say we're going to take this huge piece out of downtown, I just don't think they go hand in hand."<br /><br /><strong>Solley:<br />8/25/10</strong>--Councilman George Solley said the city's capital improvement plan changes, and he doesn't think the $12 million renovation of Executive Plaza should be listed as a savings between the two, calling it misleading. "The CIP plan in the out years is a wish list. It's what we would do if we had the money."<br /><br /><strong>1/28/2009</strong>--"The courts have legitimate needs. Whether the state requires us to or not, we need to address them," Councilman George Solley said. "The question is, where is the balance between the courts' needs and the city's ability to meet those needs. And I think we need to take a harder look at what that balance is."<br /><br /><strong>1/14/2009</strong>--Councilman George Solley said that when council members made the decision last year to put the courts on the post office site, "We knew it was more expensive."..... He said to stop now, before anybody knows how the recession will work out, or even how much the courts will really cost, "would be based on an incomplete picture."<br /><br /><strong>9/29/2008</strong>--"It's not just a nice-to-have thing. It's necessary to our economic health," Councilman George Solley said.<br /><br /><strong>Greenlaw:</strong><br /><strong>8/25/10</strong>--Councilwoman Mary Katherine Greenlaw said she doesn't think the Concept H figures can be presented as detailed or final numbers, since the Glave concept had not gone through a final design yet. Also, she pointed out the cost of renovating the square-footage in the General District Court building, a newer facility, would be different than the square-footage renovation costs to Circuit Court, making it difficult to make direct comparisons. "I don't find the estimates to be believable," Greenlaw said.<br /><br /><strong>8/22/10</strong>--The reasons are compelling. The existing courts are no longer adequate in terms of space or security. Court case filings continue to grow and stress the staffing and space needs of the Circuit Court, General District Court, and Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. However, the cost for a new facility is huge and the economy is in a serious recession. City staff and Council have struggled to find a way to address court needs in a fiscally responsible plan. We must provide safe, secure, and adequately sized facilities that meet the needs of the future while maintaining the architectural integrity of our historic city.<br /><br /><strong>11/25/2009</strong>--"It's not a matter of whether or not the judge decides it's needed," Greenlaw said. "It's just simply needed."<br /><br /><br /><strong>1/27/2009</strong>--We have been proceeding thoughtfully all along," Greenlaw said. "Obviously, the economic situation is not improving."<br /><br /><strong>9/29/2008</strong>--"This is an economic development project," Councilwoman Mary Katherine Greenlaw said. "People for years have lusted for that post office site. It needs to be redeveloped in a way that brings money into the city."<br /><br /><br /><strong>Are these public comments sufficient justification for the Council majority to move forward with the current court plan and have they adequately explained the project's impact on the city?</strong>http://questeverything.blogspot.com/2010/09/is-this-all-we-can-expect.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (MATT KELLY)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4967431791857941720.post-4263871679556969708Sun, 29 Aug 2010 15:38:00 +00002010-08-29T08:50:02.503-07:00Its Time to Step Up to The PlateMy frustration while on Council during court discussions, which continues today, is the failure of those Council members who support moving forward with the current plan to explain their position beyond rather vague statements like, court order, or moral obligation; while expecting detailed answers on options they do not support. The courts project as currently proposed will be the largest in the city's history and is being considered at a time when the economy is in the dumps. The answers provided by the Council majority thus far are totaling inadequate in light of the challenges the city now faces.<br /><br />The recent OpEd by Vice-Mayor Greenlaw gave a very good outline of the current court plans but addressed only in passing the reasons for why she supported moving the project forward. I strongly support having a public presentation and public hearing on the impacts the court project will have on city services and priorities. However, why are we having to wait for another staff presentation when the answers should be coming from Council members who must have considered all the implications prior to giving their support for the current course of action?<br /><br />Below are a list of the questions that have put forward which deserve answers from those Council members who have made up their minds and are prepared to move forward with a $40M court project. Its time they, not staff, explain their positions to the people who will ultimately have to pay for their decision--city residents.<br /><br />1. Some Council members referred to moving the courts project forward as a "moral obligation." Can you explain what you mean by that? Can you also put your position in context in regard to your views on the city's obligations to public safety and education?<br /><br />2. Do you believe that the local judiciary can order court facilities be built and that they can also assume control of the project? If so can you provide your reasoning for this position and site examples to back it up?<br /><br />3. You refused to request a moratorium on implementation of state code section 15.2-1643 on addressing court security issues last year. The General Assembly will grant such a moratorium thru 2012 if requested. Will you support such a request now? If not can you explain your position?<br /><br />4. Former Council member Joe Wilson has stated that both the Executive Plaza and Maury School were put forward for court use and rejected by the local judiciary as late as 2002. This, along with recent renovation work on the courts, would seem to refute the position put forward that court needs have been ignored and should be addressed now. Do you agree with this position?<br /><br />5. In the Moseley Report it was made clear that, "a cost of more than about $30 million for new court facilities is not affordable for the City at this time." Do you agree with this statement? If not, why do you feel the city can afford more than 30M and where do you plan on getting the funds to pay for it?<br /><br />6. Based on the statement above staff recommended building on the JDR site--Princess Anne Option C. Why did you support other options such as the post office, or even the current plan, which exceeded the staff budget recommendations?<br /><br />7. From the 2010 budget letter--"During a review of the City's ongoing financial situation, Fitch's Rating Service maintained the City's credit rating, but downgraded the outlook to negative. The rating agency cited three factors: declining sales taxes, declining real estate values, and declining fund balance positions." How do you think moving forward with the court facilities as planned will affect the City's bond rating?<br /><br />8. Do you dispute the contention that to move forward with the court project as planned that it will negatively affect other City priorities and city services? If so, can you elaborate on why you believe this will not be the case?<br /><br />9. In discussions with some local attorney's there are questions regarding the case load projections as well as court space needs. The impact of technology on court needs has also been brought up. Have you talked with any other groups outside staff, judges and consultants about the scope and needs of the courts? If so, whom have you talked with?<br /><br />10. Would you support looking at a regional option? Can you please elaborate on your position?<br /><br /><strong>Are there other questions you would like to see Council address?</strong>http://questeverything.blogspot.com/2010/08/its-time-to-step-up-to-plate.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (MATT KELLY)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4967431791857941720.post-9119234030968104938Sun, 22 Aug 2010 21:20:00 +00002010-08-22T14:31:18.774-07:00The Courts--Odds & EndsThanks to the Free Lance Star for covering the debate on new court facilities in Fredericksburg in the Viewpoint section. Each side of the argument was included and I have provided the links for each below:<br /><br />The case for continuing to move forward with the current roughly 40 million dollar proposal was put forward by Vice Mayor Mary Katherine Greenlaw:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/082010/08222010/569153">http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/082010/08222010/569153</a><br /><br />Next Ward #3 Councilman Fred Howe made the case for looking at other options:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/082010/08222010/569222">http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/082010/08222010/569222</a><br /><br />And finally yours truly made the case that the city can't afford new court facilities and needs to focus on city priorities in these tight financial times:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/082010/08222010/569240">http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/082010/08222010/569240</a><br /><br />You cannot cover everything in an 800 word OpEd so I am going to take a moment to respond to the other two OpEds as well as provide some additional points to consider.<br /><br />I have to give Councilman Howe credit for acknowledging the current financial situation the city faces and also bringing into the discussion whether the city should be taking more of the its limited real estate off the tax rolls with public buildings. He is looking at the big picture and not just focusing on court needs.<br /><br />I have some concerns regarding the proposed reuse of Executive Plaza as a court site but will withhold comment on the proposal until after the presentation is made at the 8/25 work session. Again my issue is timing and cost. We need to look at all possible options to include a regional approach and incremental work as opposed to just the only option provided which is build new facilities.<br /><br />Other than a casual mention of the current financial situation the city faces the Vice Mayor goes right into the current plans for new court facilities ignoring the impact they will have on city needs and priorities. She has validated my comments in my OpEd on how Council has failed to explain the impact of this project on the city and not brought the public into the discussion on a rather large project for which they will have to pay. To condense her OpEd to its most basic points its says--We got a letter from Judge Scott to address court needs, the Council deliberated and came up with the current $40 million plan, and oh by the way, please feel free to comment on it but we are moving forward regardless.<br /><br /><strong>Some Additional Info:</strong><br /><br />AFFORDABILITY--<br />As noted there has been some discussion on affordability. There are members of Council and staff who have said the current $40 million option is affordable. Let me let staff comment on this point as it is found on page 66 of the Mosley report: <em><span style="color:#000099;">"City staff has indicated that a cost of more than about $30 million for new court facilities is not affordable for the City at this time. As a result, any of these three options are cost prohibitive."</span></em> Council's response was to start looking at a $60 million option at the Post office site. I would again point out this position was put forward prior to the economic meltdown.<br /><br />IMPACT OF REGIONAL GROWTH--<br />On the issue of regional growth pushing the necessity for additional court space lets go back to the Mosley Report, <em><span style="color:#000066;">"The city’s population is not expected to grow significantly during the coming years, but continued rapid growth is expected in the surrounding counties. As a result, the Fixed Ratio to City Population model would not seem to be a reliable indicator of future case filings. It predicts no meaningful change in case filings for any of the courts, even though it seems certain that increasing regional population has substantially affected court case loads in the past."<br /><br /></span></em>OPERATIONAL SAVINGS--<br />At some point it has been said that in consolidating the courts there will be operation savings. Well let's see what Glave &amp; Holmes, drafters of the current proposal have to say, <span style="color:#000066;"><em>"Glave &amp; Holmes Assoc. acknowledged that they did not see any significant savings, but rather some increases, in operational costs. In the Moseley report the number of employees need to operate the facility over the next 20 years will rise from 78 to 118."<br /></em></span><br />THE PROCESS FOR COURT INTERVENTION--<br />Here is the link to Virginia Code section 15.2-1643,<br /><br /><a href="http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+15.2-1643">http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+15.2-1643</a><br /><br />I'll let you come to your own conclusions on whether the local judiciary can mandate court construction.<br /><br />MORATORIUM ON COURT ACTION--<br />As noted in my OpEd the General Assembly had placed a moratorium on implementing the process as outlined in 15.2-1643 in the previous budget. They have now extended that action in the new budget, <em><span style="color:#000066;">"F. Mandated changes or improvements to court facilities pursuant to § 15.2-1643, Code of Virginia, or otherwise shall be delayed at the request of the local governing body in which the court is located until June 30, 2012. The provisions of this item shall not apply to facilities that were subject to litigation on or before November 30,2008."</span></em> So even the General Assembly is acknowledging the rather bad financial situation we face. All Council has to do is ask for the moratorium.<br /><br />WHAT ABOUT TECHNOLOGY--<br />Some have questioned whether the city has considered the impact of improvements in technology on the growth needs of the courts. To date this question has still not been addressed. Here is a link to a recent story on this topic which was forwarded to Council members,<br /><br /><a href="http://www2.newsvirginian.com/news/2010/jun/06/technology_streamlines_courtrooms-ar-297665/">http://www2.newsvirginian.com/news/2010/jun/06/technology_streamlines_courtrooms-ar-297665/</a><br /><br /><strong>If you have specific questions or other suggestions or concerns about this issue I would be happy to take a stab at them. </strong>http://questeverything.blogspot.com/2010/08/courts-odds-ends.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (MATT KELLY)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4967431791857941720.post-4288596974334528825Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:06:00 +00002010-08-01T05:08:32.034-07:00A Little Help on Your HomeworkThere seems to be a lot of confusion about exactly what role the local judges have in determining whether, when, and or how court needs are addressed. Below is a link to the State Code section which deals with this issue.<br /><br /><a href="http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+15.2-1643">http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+15.2-1643</a><br /><br /><strong>I'll let you come to your own conclusions but would appreciate it if you would consider sharing your thoughts on the subject.</strong>http://questeverything.blogspot.com/2010/08/little-help-on-your-homework.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (MATT KELLY)5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4967431791857941720.post-5732417016931004828Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:06:00 +00002010-08-01T05:06:30.714-07:00http://questeverything.blogspot.com/2010/08/blog-post.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (MATT KELLY)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4967431791857941720.post-7961957518677755561Sat, 31 Jul 2010 02:17:00 +00002010-07-30T19:42:29.726-07:00The Courts--The Public's RoleCouncilman Fred Howe, working with local architect Raymond Herlong, has put forward another option to consider to meet future court needs. The plan calls for renovating and adding onto the Executive Plaza and renovating the existing Circuit Court building. As reported in the Free-Lance Star <a href="http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/072010/07302010/564970">http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/072010/07302010/564970</a> a work session on the proposal is being scheduled for the end of August. I have lost count of the number of work sessions and meetings Council has had on the courts issue.<br /><br />What I do know is that to date the residents of Fredericksburg, who will ultimately have to foot the bill for whatever option is decided upon, has not been given a forum in which to express their thoughts on the project. Nor has the impact of this project on the City been adequately explained.<br /><br />When the City embarked on another large capital project--the construction of two new schools--Council went to great lengths to explain to the public the need for the schools, the cost to city taxpayers, and the impact on future budgets and capital projects. They also sought public input.<br /><br />This has not happened in the case of the courts project in part because a majority on the Council feel we are mandated to build new facilities by the local judiciary. I have posted links to previous blog posts on the subject of the courts project which shows that this is not the case. Also for the past year a moratorium has been in place against any court action. A moratorium Council refused to support.<br /><br />But even if we were to accept the view that we are facing a court order does that justify not explaining to the public the impact this project will have on their tax rates, city services, schools, and other capital projects? Should city residents not have an opportunity to get answers to their questions and concerns? And should they not have the opportunity to voice their opinions on whether the city should move forward at the current pace?<br /><br />At the Council meeting of November 24, 2009 Resolution 09-118, <span style="color:#000066;">Approving a Concept for Courthouse Development and Authorizing the City Manager to Initiate Various Pre-Development Activities (D09-612), <span style="color:#000000;">was discussed</span>. </span>It was to set the City timeline on moving the downtown fire station and using the existing site for a court complex.<br /><br />I moved to defer taking action on the resolution until which time, <span style="color:#000066;">"Council address the following with the public: financing, impact on operating budget and what the City can and cannot do with the courts project."</span> The motion was seconded by Councilman Ellis but was defeated 4-2 with the Vice Mayor being absent. I voted against the resolution which passed on a 5-1 vote.<br /><br />After the vote members of Council stated that the public would have opportunities to provide public comment as the process continued such as when funds were voted on and when plans were brought forward for approval. But what about a presentation to the public explaining the impact of the project on the city and residents?<br /><br />Before another vote is taken by City Council on the courts project a public hearing and presentation should be made to explain the project's impact on the tax rate, its impact on future capital projects, additional operating costs, and its impact on other city services such as public safety and schools.<br /><br />Also, those members of City Council who support moving the courts project forward need to explain why they support this project. If they believe the project is being forced on the city provide specifics as to why that is the case. What are the benefits to city residents in moving this project forward now?<br /><br />Some members of Council have stated that moving forward on the courts is a, "moral obligation." They need to explain how this obligation compares to the city's obligations to schools, public safety, city services and other city needs.<br /><br />City residents are facing significant tax increases during a major downturn in the economy. They should expect to have the opportunity to get answers to their questions and concerns in an open forum. Council members need to provide a detailed explanation on the long term costs of the project to the city, and their reasons for moving this project forward at this time.<br /><br /><strong>How do you view the process Council has taken in moving the court project forward?</strong>http://questeverything.blogspot.com/2010/07/courts-publics-role.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (MATT KELLY)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4967431791857941720.post-1743063252984240604Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:53:00 +00002010-02-10T09:27:34.336-08:00The Courts vs. Core Services--It's Not One Or The Other!--Isn't It?During a recent Council discussion on the court project it became apparent that there is a difference of opinion regarding how to deal with our current financial difficulties and on City priorities. I had just agreed with Councilman Ellis that under the current economic situation no new funding should be provided, nor debt increased, for the court project this year and instead focus on core services--public safety, services, and education. At this point I was told by one of my collogues that I should stop implying that we can only either move the court project forward or maintain services. This came as a bit of a surprise for me.<br /><br />As it has been reported, almost on a daily basis and in multi-media, localities will see significant reductions in state funding in all areas. One has only to look what local school districts are going through and they are now only dealing with state cuts. Funding at the local level is still up for discussion. Last night we authorized the use of our gas tax funds for snow removal expenses and to make up a $65,000 cut in our road maintenance budget from the state. Even when fully funded the state contribution doesn't cover the city's actual costs.<br /><br />Local revenue is still lagging and last year the city used almost two million in reserves and the budget still came in lower than the previous year. So we start the coming year already in a hole. We were able to provide some additional funds to the schools last year by bring in designated reserves--a one-time expenditure. We don't have any to use this year.<br /><br />We have seen the city workforce not only reduced due to attrition, but also no raises, the suspension of a retirement program, and increased benefit costs-- meaning actual salary reductions. We have deferred need maintenance on equipment and capital projects and have reduced funding to core services. And this year's budget will be worse than last years. So you can understand my surprise with the implication that we can both move forward with court project and maintain core services to residents.<br /><br />My response to my colleague's remark was to ask the City Manager if there was some new funding sources that I was not aware of that could be used for the court project. I was told that bonds would have to be sold and new debt incurred. As previously reported the total cost of the new court facility will translate to 6 to 9 cents on the tax rate. So, to move the court project forward and maintain services will require additional tax increase in addition to those for the courts, and or further reductions in the budget outside of core services.<br /><br />On the tax front I have already mentioned that sales and related taxes are down or flat. On the real estate side we are soon to go into another assessment cycle and as seen in Spotsylvania the residential market has not bounced back as much as we have hoped. During our last assessment we got in before the drop in the commercial market, which usually lags 12 to 18 months behind residential, so we are now looking at lower commercial values. Taking bets on whether the assessment will be deferred. So how much more can we raise taxes in an already depressed economy with high unemployment?<br /><br />Although I consider myself a good Republican I do not subscribe to the "No Tax" mantra as stated in a number of previous posts. For me the deciding fact is the benefit of an expenditure in either the area of expanding the tax base and or bettering the quality of life of our residents. Frankly, for the cost involved, and based on the current economic conditions, I don't see any significant benefit in moving forward with the court project. It is my contention, which a majority of my colleagues disagree, that moving forward with the court at this time could be detrimental to our commercial base, services, and quality of life of our residents.<br /><br />The majority response is that the courts are inadequate and it is our "moral obligation" to replace them. That to move forward now will mean we can get a better price due to the depressed economic conditions. As for our "moral obligation" I thought we owed that to city residents by providing them a good quality of life. As for costs benefits I would point out that you first have to have the money. Right now we don't have it unless we significantly raise taxes. And the argument for the price savings could also be made for deferred projects and infrastructure improvements that will have a more beneficial impact on the city than will a new court facility.<br /><br />As for additional cuts outside of core services that is an decision which this Council has avoided for three years. Each year we talk about it and each year we give everybody who asks some level of funding. This after two years of telling such groups, or sending letters, advising them not to expect funding next year. And each year the Council says we will talk about budget priorities next year. The question of what services should local government be supporting is one that I have asked repeatedly, and posted on, and am still awaiting an answer. We do need to prioritize our expenditures and the court project should not be high in the list.<br /><br />I have asked for a public presentation on the court project including an overview of the current city finances, a time line for the project, costs for the design, cost of the project, funding sources for it, and its implication on the budget. And now, based on the comments from some of my collogues, I would expect an explanation from them on how we move the court project forward without impacting core service. And also what do they see as the city's priorities. That presentation should come sooner rather than later.<br /><br /><strong>Do you see the court project as a priority for the city? Are you willing to see services reduced further or pay higher taxes so this project can move forward? </strong>http://questeverything.blogspot.com/2010/02/courts-vs-core-services-its-not-one-or.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (MATT KELLY)2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4967431791857941720.post-6300823725278071521Thu, 14 Jan 2010 04:16:00 +00002010-01-13T20:36:44.929-08:00Bad Policy or Do I Just Need to Cut Loose?<span style="color:#000000;">Before addressing the issue at hand; the recently passed noise ordinance, I will disclose some of my life experiences to establish that I am not just a curmudgeon trying to ruin everyone's fun. While we have all "heard" the anecdotal stories related to having a bit too much to drink I will admit that I lived through a lot of them as an undergraduate at Mary Washington College. And while I did not worship at the altar to Led Zeppelin, much to my 17 year old son's disgust, I was known to crank up Bad Company, Pink Floyd, and of course the classic party song "Back in the Saddle" by Aerosmith. </span><br /><span style="color:#000000;"></span><br /><span style="color:#000000;">I was for a time content to maintain my arrested state of development until meeting a lovely young lady, to whom I have now been married for the past 30 years, who gave me a swift kick in the (expletive deleted) back onto the road of life. Today I still enjoy cranking up the music of my youth (hearing loss) along with having a Guinness or two with friends. So I have been there and done that--though some of it is still a bit hazy. With my party credentials established we can now go back to the Noise Ordinance.</span><br /><span style="color:#000000;"><br />The city's Noise Ordinance had to be revised (<a href="http://fredericksburgva.gov/agenda/2010/0112/10a.pdf">http://fredericksburgva.gov/agenda/2010/0112/10a.pdf</a>) based on recent court decisions. What should have been just another exercise in over complicating a relatively simple issue ( a discussion for another day) was turned up a notch when the Council wanted additional information on whether other localities made special allowances for their downtown commercial districts. Specifically, what were the hours of enforcement. Staff checked (5) localities, Fairfax, Virginia Beach, Alexandria, Williamsburg, and Charlottesville. All five mirrored our ordinance--"... specifying the time of 11:00p.m. as the hour at which common noise disturbances must end..."</span><br /><span style="color:#000000;"><br />In presenting the ordinance staff, based on previous comments from Council, provided an option to push forward the time to 1:00a.m. on Friday and Saturday nights in the downtown commercial district. No recommendations regarding the options were made by staff or requested by Council. The motion, with this change to 1 a.m., passed 6 to 1 with yours truly dissenting. No public statements were made by the majority providing a rationale for changing the time. My reason for not supporting the motion was nothing was presented to support the need for a change that could negatively impact downtown residents. </span><br /><span style="color:#000000;"><br />So why did we make the change? No one or group from the downtown business community requested it. As far as I'm aware no effort was made to discuss this with the downtown business community to determine their views or those of downtown residents. No other localities were identified that have adopted such a change. And no reasons were presented, in public, to support it? The reasons provided after the meeting centered on revenue.<br /><br />It was suggested that to limit noise downtown before 1 a.m. on Friday and Saturday nights (actually a misnomer with the times actually being 1 a.m. on Saturday and Sunday mornings) could negatively impact revenue and by extending the hours (noise) more revenue could be generated. So the assumption was that more or less noise downtown had a direct correlation with revenue raised by the purchase of alcohol. I say alcohol because not a lot of food in purchased between 11p.m. and 1a.m. Nothing was presented to support that assumption. My guess is no such effort to establish such a correlation has been attempted.<br /><br />It was also suggested that there are those who will leave an establishment if the band has to stop playing at 11p.m. There is nothing to support that music will have to stop at 11p.m. just because of the noise ordinance. And again nothing was presented to support the supposition that a when a band stops playing sales drop. Finally, having observed the clientele leaving the bars downtown at closing time first hand with our police department I would have to say I heard and saw a lot that would earn at least an R-rating but I don't remember any comments about the bands.<br /><br />Finally it was put forward that by not extending the time to 1 a.m. could possibly result in people going elsewhere like to the neighboring counties. Yet I didn't hear any questions during the discussions on the ordinance on how the counties handle noise. I couldn't tell you what hours, if any, the counties set in their noise ordinance and I will go out on a limb and say that none of my colleagues do either. So how do you take such a position when you have nothing to support it?<br /><br />And what about the impact of this change on downtown residents? Well, I was told, you have to expect some inconveniences when you live in a downtown setting--I agree. I agree that living downtown presents parking problems and the level of activity is such that residents do have to deal with more commotion that do residents in neighborhoods. Does that mean we are justified in adding to those inconveniences? Not unless there is some positive results that are derived that could justify the added inconvenience. In the case of extending the hours of the noise ordinance nothing was presented, nor questions asked, or information requested, that could support such a result.<br /><br />The issue here is not whether the noise ordinance sets quiet time at 11p.m. or 1a.m. Frankly, I see nothing that supports the position that it will have any effect on revenue generation; but it may keep downtown residents up a little later on Friday and Saturday nights, and Sunday morning. What is at issue here is that a decision was made without any supporting documentation, or questions asked, to determine the impact of the change. An unsupported assumption was made and a vote taken without any comment from those who supported the change on why it was being done. Is this the way to deal with any issue that come before Council?<br /><br /><strong>So was this a bad policy decision or should I break out the Mad Dog and 151, crank-up the 8-track player, and cut loose! </strong></span>http://questeverything.blogspot.com/2010/01/bad-policy-or-do-i-just-need-to-cut.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (MATT KELLY)14